The Lord Bishop of Coventry

Colin James, Lord Bishop of Coventry—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chester and the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Afghanistan

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will respond to increasing concerns about security in Afghanistan.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we shall maintain our contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is helping to provide security in Kabul. Moreover, we intend to build on the deployment of the UK-led provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e Sharif to help the Afghans to improve the security environment beyond Kabul. We are also supporting longer-term projects to develop Afghanistan's own security sector, including through the training of the Afghan National Army and police.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer although it will not satisfy the people of Afghanistan who have been waiting ever since the war for a full programme of reconstruction. It is simply not enough to say that the provincial reconstruction teams will fill the task of ISAF outside Kabul. Does the noble Baroness accept that without security there can be no reconstruction outside Kabul? Now that the ISAF force is to be controlled by NATO, is it not time to extend ISAF's mandate outside Kabul to give that safety and security that the Afghani people are waiting for?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that security remains a very serious concern for all involved and particularly for the people of Afghanistan. In addition to the attack on ISAF on 7th June, which resulted in the deaths of four German ISAF personnel, there have been sporadic attacks against coalition and transitional administration targets as well as NGOs. Those attacks increased in the spring, but it is the Government's view that they do not constitute an organised offensive. As I said in my original Answer to the noble Earl, we shall ensure that we support longer-term projects to develop Afghanistan's own security sector. We are endeavouring to ensure that funding continues for reconstruction. Overall UK funding has been of the order of £170 million since September 2001, and there are plans for a total of £320 million over five years.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Department for International Development has over the past few years published a number of studies and I can remember speeches by Clare Short saying that international development/nation-building is not possible unless order is first provided. One would have thought that the hard-learned lessons of the British would be shared with others in Afghanistan. Can the Minister explain why this appears to have been very much an American-led operation, with a rejection of the links as regards nation-building, and an operation in which British and other European experience has played so little part?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we continue to learn the lessons of nation-building. Perhaps I may go into a little more detail on one aspect of my original Answer; namely, on the setting up of the provincial reconstruction teams. Today, UK personnel will be setting up the first UK-led provincial reconstruction team, which will be the beginning of coming to terms in a very serious way with the problems outside Kabul—problems not covered by the ISAF presence. As I said, we continue to learn the lessons of nation-building.
	There are some good news stories from Afghanistan. We are inclined to hear constantly about the problems—obviously, that is what will come through in the media. But the good news stories are there. Building is starting in Kabul—buildings are going up all over the city. Kabul is now full of restaurants—and traffic jams. Two million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since January 2002, and 4 million children are now back at school. So there are a great number of achievements—and, of course, we still have a long way to go.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary rather bravely went to Kandahar last week. Is it not true that he found that the Taliban were practically in control again and that there was a great deal of anxiety? Does not that reinforce the point indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the NATO-driven ISAF should consider extending its mandate and activities well outside Kabul? While the Minister is talking about good news, will she tell the House what has happened to the plan to try to restrict opium production in Afghanistan? It seems that the more money that we put in, the more opium they grow there. Surely, that is not what is intended.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, we have just agreed further funding so far as concerns the counter-narcotics situation. The Afghan Government are committed to eliminating opium cultivation over 10 years. But, obviously, we cannot do that alone. We need a sustained commitment by the international community, led by the UK, to build up Afghan drug law enforcement and to provide alternative livelihoods for opium poppy farmers.
	On the noble Lord's point about extending ISAF into the regions, he will know that any change in ISAF's role or area of responsibility would require a new UN mandate. He will also know that there is little appetite among current contributing nations to alter the ISAF mission or to commit large numbers of additional troops to ISAF. There is, of course, no guarantee that what worked in Kabul would be effective in the rest of the country. That is why I referred in my original Answer to the building up of the provincial reconstruction teams and to the longer-term project to assist the Afghans to develop their own security through their own police and army.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the claim in a Channel 5 documentary that there was a massacre of Taliban prisoners of war, who were held in containers and were then killed and buried in mass graves? Will Her Majesty's Government support an international investigation into that massacre?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about the mass graves at Dasht-e-Leili, then I say to him that we support the UN's two-stage approach to the investigation. Forensic investigation and dignified reburials will take place. Then, when the security situation improves, more detailed witness interviews and investigations will continue. We stand ready to play a supportive role in any investigation if assistance is required.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are out of time now.

Schools: Teacher Numbers

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many teachers are likely to lose their jobs as a result of the financial problems encountered by schools in England in the next school year; and how many teaching and other staff posts will remain unfilled for the same reason.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, decisions about the complement of teachers are for schools to take. Each year schools may increase or reduce the number of teachers and support staff they employ to take account of a wide variety of factors, including pupil numbers and the overall funding available to them. We do not have definitive information about changes in teaching and other posts in the new school year. The position changes week by week as schools finalise their budgets in discussion with their local education authorities.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her not very informative reply. One or two weeks ago in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister estimated that 500 teachers would be made redundant in schools this year and that roughly half of those redundancies would result from the school budget changes. While the number of redundancies—which result from mistakes made by the DfES in its own budget sums, as it now admits—may be fairly small, the knock-on effects will be considerable.
	Is the Minister aware that many schools are, for example, forgoing teacher in-service development, cutting their budgets for school trips and laying off part-time support staff, and that information technology, library and stationery budgets are all suffering? Does she accept that the crisis has thrown into jeopardy the Government's plans for smaller classes and more classroom assistants? Will she also tell us what the Government are planning in order to avoid similar crises arising next year?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Baroness was complimenting me on being less than informative, but there we are. The crisis to which she refers is very important in the context of considering what we do next year, and my right honourable friend will bring forward precise information on that. We have worked very closely with individual education authorities on the issues that have arisen from the changes that we have made this year. The specific points made by the noble Baroness will also be addressed.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister quoted 500 redundancies as an estimate based on the very early figures received. Based on the information that we have now, that number will already have fallen considerably. However, as I said in my first reply, the situation changes week by week and I would not wish to misinform the House.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, given that the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for schools said that they would stay closely in touch with schools on this matter, there is no answer to the specific question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp? Does she also agree with a teacher who wrote to me only a week ago saying that she was taking voluntary retirement in order to help her school by not filling a post? That post is not registered as not being filled due to lack of money, yet that is precisely why that teacher is taking voluntary retirement.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the department is talking to education authorities and individual schools. Much information is available, both anecdotal and in terms of the returns put forward by education authorities. We talked to education authorities about the number of redundancies being approximately 300. But that figure comes from notices that are issued; it is not necessarily the figure that will appear in the final part of the equation because, of course, things change. Noble Lords will be aware of the steps that we have taken to ensure that schools are supported, and we continue to work with them.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, under the present funding arrangements, there are both winners and losers. The winners are characteristically—or shall I say "understandably"—keeping silent. If the Government want to move towards direct funding for schools, how much extra money will be needed and how much extra money will be available?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I say to the right reverend Prelate that, because of the new funding formula, many schools have done very well. If they are being quiet, it is because they are getting on with the business of teaching and learning. Of course, that is no consolation for those who feel that this has been a difficult year. My right honourable friend is considering the available options in terms of how best to ensure stability in the funding system and appropriate funding for next year. He will report to another place shortly.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, where roll numbers continue to fall, there is bound to be a significant effect on the teacher establishment, even if local authorities seek to assist in transitional periods? Would my noble friend care to say how many jobs will be or have been lost as a result of falling rolls rather than because of government cuts or supposed lack of generosity?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend has exactly hit upon the issue. Indeed, at present rolls are falling and redundancies are being created, as they are created every year as differences in school populations occur. At this stage, it is impossible to say precisely why we have redundancies in certain schools and certain education authorities—hence, my not wishing to misinform the House.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, many schools are running deficits at present in order to overcome their difficulties. What advice will the department be giving to those schools early in the new year when they are in a true financial crisis?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we hope to give advice to schools long before early in the new year. As the noble Lord will appreciate, it is important that schools which run a deficit know as early as possible precisely what the funding situation will be. The department is working on that as we speak.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the current crisis does not overshadow the important steps that her department has taken to improve inclusion for the most marginalised children—for example, by reducing the number of children excluded from school by 20 per cent since 1996–97?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Earl acknowledged in his question, it is important that we deliver the education system for all children. The most marginalised and excluded children deserve our greatest support and we must ensure that they have the best teaching and learning experience. It is our objective to continue to do so as effectively as we can.

Natural Disaster Reduction Initiatives

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their current and planned expenditure on reducing the adverse effect of natural disasters in developing countries and how much of this expenditure is devoted to preventive measures.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development's office for humanitarian assistance deals with the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Preventive work includes addressing the scale of the hazard, reducing the community's vulnerability and strengthening its capacity to deal with disasters. Much of that preventive work is integrated into wider development programmes. Therefore, it is difficult to itemise all prevention expenditure. A sum of £3 million is provided annually to international bodies working on prevention.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, which finished a couple of years ago, showed that in government agencies, academia and the private sector there was considerable UK expertise in the science and technology of natural disaster reduction and that that could be used more effectively to partner work in developing countries with further support by her own and other relevant departments?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is significant UK expertise in the area of disaster reduction. Indeed, the Department for International Development supports a number of initiatives that call upon UK expertise. These include a recent Overseas Development Institute study on the economic and financial impact of natural disasters and annual support to the British Red Cross Society. We are in the process of reviewing how we might step up our work in this important area.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Secretary of State agree that there are two stages? One is disaster relief and the other is dealing with the many major problems that continue long after the immediate disaster relief has been carried out. Is it not important that NGOs working in these areas should pick up that part of the job and do their best to deal with it?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that there are two stages—in fact, there are three. There is prevention work. We are carrying out considerable work in countries like Bangladesh and in the Caribbean region. There is then disaster relief itself and what one does afterwards. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to engage a range of actors, including NGOs, in that process.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the project being supported by the ProVention Consortium that encourages young, innovative professionals to come together in what I believe is called "virtual space" to share best practice and ideas? Is she also aware that the size of that pilot project is very small? The grants are only £5,000 and it involves around 50 people. If the project proves very worth while, will she encourage the consortium to be much more generous and enable the project to be spread far more widely?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the work of the ProVention Consortium. In fact, we support the consortium. I take the point made by the noble Baroness. If there is success and we are able to increase funding, I shall be happy to look at that.

Post Office Closure Proposals

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In light of the proposals announced on 7th July to close four post offices in Colne, Lancashire, how many proposals to close urban post offices they have made in the last three months.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, proposals for post office branch closures are an operational matter for Post Office Limited. The company is currently engaged in a process described as the urban network reinvention programme to reduce the number of outlets in urban areas in order to create a viable network for the future and to reduce the risk of unplanned closures. I understand that in the three months from the beginning of April to the end of June, Post Office Limited has entered into public consultation for 233 closure proposals under that programme.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that slightly depressing reply. It may be an operational matter for the Post Office, but the Government will get the blame. I hope the Minister listens. Does he agree that the consultation period that applies to the proposals, generally of four weeks, is not adequate to allow local people and particularly local organisations like parish councils and town councils to give them proper consideration and to make representations? That was specifically the case in Colne. Is he aware that this week is the beginning of local wakes weeks—Colne holidays—when the schools break up for the summer and most people go on holiday? It is therefore a most inappropriate time to hold the consultation. Will he make representations to the Post Office in this instance to extend the consultation period to the end of August?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government get the blame for everything—justified or not. The consultation process starts when Post Office Limited provides Postwatch with two weeks in which to make representations on behalf of the consumers of the post offices. The matter then goes out for general consultation for a one-month period. We are aware that the consultation period in relation to the Colne Valley sub-post offices covers the wakes week period and is traditionally a time when many people are on holiday. In the circumstances I am happy to write to the chief executive of Post Office Limited, David Mills, to ask whether he will consider the merits of what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said and to see whether the consultation period can be extended.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Post Office report and accounts of 1996–97 referred to 19,251 retail outlets but that as of March this year there were only 17,239? Bearing in mind that Post Office Counters runs a six-day operation, does he agree with my mathematics that in the six years since the Government came to power we have lost on each working day of the Post Office at least one post office? Can he assure me that, while writing about the consultation procedure for closing post offices, he will try to persuade the Post Office to keep a few more open?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I have two points to make to my noble friend. First, the rate of closure of post offices has slowed down considerably in the past two years. The Government realise that it is essential to keep a post office network in urban and rural areas that provides the services that customers need. It is interesting to note that before the closures started 99 per cent of the population lived within one mile of a post office, but after the closure plan has been completed everyone will live within 96.5. I am sorry—

A noble Lord: That's Labour for you.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: That is Labour for you. I shall repeat that to make the situation absolutely clear. Once the closure plan has been completed 96 per cent of the population will live within one mile of a post office.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that 345 sub-post offices closed last year? He did not include in the figures he gave a further 102 sub-post offices that come under the regeneration programme. From April 2002 to March 2003 there has been the closure of some 345 post offices, which I believe is a disgrace. That leaves only 8,894 in urban areas and 8,345 in rural areas compared with a previous figure of 23,000. It is time that the Government took action.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the problem has to be seen by looking at the infrastructure of post offices in the country and deciding what is needed and what is required. It may be helpful if I tell the House that the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters said:
	"We accepted the PIU report's conclusion that in some areas there are too many urban post offices to remain commercially viable, and so if fewer post offices are needed, then sub-postmasters should be compensated for the loss of their asset".
	He went on to say something that is absolutely apposite in answer to this Question:
	"It is wrong to criticise the industry for being out of date and in decline, and then create panic when we are doing something about it".
	The Government are trying to construct within the UK an infrastructure of sub-post offices that provides good service to customers in the country.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I ask my noble friend in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to be geographically accurate. The question concerns Colne in Lancashire, an area that we both know very well, and not Colne Valley. I know it is north of Watford, but surely that is no excuse.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I apologise to everyone in Colne for my error. While I am on my feet talking about Colne, I should tell the House that although four sub-post offices are subject to consultation for closure, there are still three in the almost immediate area. The furthest that anyone in Colne will be from a post office after the closures is 0.6 of a mile.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that he may have made an error in his Answer, but he also made a significant, what might be termed Freudian slip, when he said that government policy is to do this? I thought that the Minister's first Answer—perhaps he can confirm this—was to the effect that the situation was nothing to do with the Government and that it was entirely a commercial matter for the Post Office. If it is something to do with the Government, does he accept that his indication that 233 or 240 urban post offices would close will cause significant concern, particularly to the elderly and to the infirm?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken if he thought I made a Freudian slip. I made no such thing. All I can do is repeat the Government's position that we want to deliver to the public of the United Kingdom a modern, efficient and accessible sub-post office structure. Of course we are aware of those who are less fortunate than us—the disabled—but carers and families will help. We are looking at a massive reduction in the number of post offices, but we are aiming for and achieving a rational and sensible structure of post offices in our country.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the noble Lord now accept that the original change in how benefit payments are made has caused absolute devastation to post offices, not just urban ones as mentioned in this Question but rural ones as well? Does he further agree that the new Post Office card account, which is extremely difficult to access, combined with a low information campaign that will probably mean a low take-up, will actually, contrary to what the Minister says, accelerate the closure of post offices because there will be no reason for people to go to them?
	Whether or not—bearing in mind the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall—that is down to the Government, since the original mistake was made by the Government how will they rectify this absolute horror caused to post offices all over the country and the consumers who use them?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that was wonderful rhetoric but it contained little substance. Half the post offices that closed last year had fewer than 70 clients per week coming in. Secondly, the Government are carrying out a major initiative under the universal banking and direct payment of benefits plan. When that was suggested, the Opposition thought it would be a failure; in fact it is a success. We are fully aware that if we are going to have a viable and modern post office structure, it must be available for all the services mentioned by the noble Baroness. That is precisely what we shall do.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend says that the change will reduce the percentage of the population living within a mile of a post office from 99 per cent to 96 per cent. If my mathematics are right, that is 1.5 million people. How is that taken into account in the viability calculation that he mentioned? In other words, does the Post Office add in the extra cost to people, or their added difficulty in getting to these post offices from further away, or are the figures purely on the Post Office's own business?
	Secondly, my noble friend made a most welcome comment about consulting people on the closure of post offices. Will Royal Mail also consult about those affected by mail rail closures?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am not here to answer questions about Royal Mail; I am here to answer questions about sub-post offices. My noble friend made a valid point. When Post Office Counters Limited first started its closure plans, it did so countrywide. Now, in the light of its experience, it is doing so on a local basis to make absolutely sure that everyone has the necessary access to his or her local post office. Calculating figures on the national scale is not the answer to the noble Lord's question. Consultation and policy are now being operated on a local level because obviously issues vary from one part of the country to another.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords—

Lord Swinfen: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the Liberal Democrats' turn.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, reference was made in an earlier answer to operational matters. Yesterday, in connection with mail rail, we heard about commercial matters. Are there such things in post offices and Royal Mail which have a social, environmental or strategic dimension? What are they? Are these not areas in which the Government give a steer and indeed have some influence?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, precisely. The Government give a steer. If we look at the rural network, since November 2000 the Government have made a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain a rural network and to prevent avoidable closures. Of course there is a social dimension to this problem; it cannot be left to the free market. Having said that, it is, as I said, an operational matter for the Post Office. If I had just said that and sat down, the noble Lord would not have been very happy. I have been trying to give as much information as possible under that heading—that this is a matter to do primarily with the Post Office.

Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information they have about the health and safety of Aung San Suu Kyi following her imprisonment at Insein prison, and what measures they are taking to secure her release.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the UK was reassured that the UN Secretary-General special envoy to Burma, Razali Ismail, was able to see Aung San Suu Kyi on 10th June and confirm that she was well. However, Aung San Suu Kyi has not been seen by the outside world since. We remain deeply concerned for her welfare and the welfare of the NLD members detained on and since 30th May. We are actively discussing with our EU and international partners what further measures we will take to ensure that Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD members are released as soon as possible.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I strongly welcome the statement the Minister has just made. I ask her to reiterate the condemnation that many on all sides of your Lordships' House feel for the arbitrary actions of the Burmese military and, indeed, our admiration for Aung San Suu Kyi as she enters the second month of her imprisonment.
	Can the Minister tell us more about the initiative that has been taken with our European Union partners and whether we are raising this matter inside the United Nations Security Council?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. While on my feet, I also acknowledge the role that he and other noble Lords in this House have played in lobbying so strongly for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and for an end to the violation of human rights against so many of the Burmese people.
	We are in discussion with our EU partners. We are stepping up lobbying also with our ASEAN partners and with China and India. We will of course support any initiative that comes from the European Union. We have raised our concerns over Burma with our Security Council partners at the UN. Whether the matter is to be referred to the Security Council is under discussion. We strongly hope that it will be.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, has any response yet been received from British American Tobacco to the request made by Mike O'Brien that it follows the example of Premier Oil and withdraws from Burma?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the chairman of British American Tobacco agreed to consider the request by my honourable friend Mike O'Brien that it withdraws its investment from Burma. He will give a formal reply soon.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, while the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi and the other recently arrested NLD members is rightly uppermost in our minds, does the noble Baroness agree that there are many other opposition members and indeed ethnic nationals who are currently unjustly imprisoned in Burma in horrific conditions? Will the noble Baroness give an indication whether, when representations are made by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi, the case of all those unjustly imprisoned will also be raised? That is what Aung San Suu Kyi herself would wish with her valiant commitment to democracy.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, yes. Only a few days ago, the noble Baroness raised the whole problem of Burma and tabled a useful debate in the House. We were very clear with our European Union partners that we wanted to strengthen the European Union's common position on Burma. We ensured that references to violence and human rights violations in ethnic minority areas were included in that new strengthened EU common position.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's statement that we are consulting members of the Security Council about what measures we could take at that level. She will remember that I made that suggestion on 24th June. In reference to Mr Razali Ismail's visit to Aung San Suu Kyi, is it not correct that he told the press conference that she displayed no visible signs of ill health, but that he did not have the opportunity to question her in any detail, either about her own well-being or about the appalling incident at the end of May when 70 to 100 of her entourage were killed?
	Did the ICRC representatives, who visited Insein prison yesterday, have a chance to see Aung San Suu Kyi, or did they at least ascertain whether she was still present or that perhaps she had been moved, as rumour will have it?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have reliable reports that Aung San Suu Kyi has been removed from Insein prison, but the regime has refused to state where exactly she is. The noble Lord is right about her welfare. We have extreme concerns about that. Therefore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as well as my honourable friend Mike O'Brien have made repeated requests to speak to her directly and have been refused by the Burmese authorities.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, did the noble Baroness notice last week a senior American official saying that the United States was losing patience with the Burma regime and that it was considering much tougher economic sanctions? Has she noticed that the Japanese Government are also taking a much firmer line, both individually and within ASEAN? Is that also the Government's policy?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we very much welcome the strong reaction from the United States. It proposes to impose an import ban. We have also acknowledged the Japanese reaction, which we very much welcome because we believe that one of the strongest motivations for the Burmese to change their policy will be pressure from the neighbours in their region. As for our position, we continue to work with our European Union partners within the limits of the EU's common position.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the representations made by the United States and Japan are very good news indeed. Can the noble Baroness tell us a little more about what response has been received from India and China?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Baroness about the detail, but we welcome responses from those countries.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, it may be helpful if I make a couple of comments about today's business. After the Bill being presented for Third Reading by my noble friend Lord Corbett, a Statement on the skills strategy will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Ashton. The House will then go into Committee on recommitment on the Water Bill in respect of fluoridation. Once the Committee stage has finished, we will adjourn consideration of the Water Bill for at least two hours. During that time, we shall discuss the Scotland Act order and the Taxation (Information) Bill.
	The adjournment of the Water Bill is to allow amendments to be tabled for Report on fluoridation. If amendments reach the Public Bill Office within the first hour of the adjournment, they can be distributed in time for Report. Assuming that amendments are tabled for Report, a Marshalled List will be made available in the Printed Paper Office at that stage. At the end of Second Reading of the Taxation (Information) Bill, or two hours after the end of the Committee on recommitment, whichever is the later, the House will consider the fluoridation clauses on Report. It is then intended that we shall proceed without adjournment to the Third Reading of the Water Bill.

Clerk of the Parliaments

On consideration of the letter from Sir John Michael Davies, KCB, announcing his retirement from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wish to pay whole-hearted tribute to the Clerk of the Parliaments, who will retire on Monday. On 12th March this year, I informed your Lordships of Sir Michael's intention of retiring from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I said then that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Michael. I now move to resolve,
	"That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir John Michael Davies, KCB, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir John Michael Davies executed the important duties of his office".
	Your Lordships will have marvelled at the orotund majesty of that Motion. I know that the Clerk of the Parliaments will especially welcome it, as he drafted it himself.
	Sir Michael has been Clerk of the Parliaments since 1997. He has therefore been head of the Parliament Office throughout the whole period that we on this side have had the privilege of being in government. His fortunes have always flowered under Labour. His long, highly distinguished career in this House started in 1964, the same year that the Labour Party was restored to power under Mr Wilson. On behalf of the members of Government—I shall come to the whole House in a moment—during the past six years, I want to place on record our real gratitude for the advice with which he provided us as we began to settle in as a new government.
	In fact, Sir Michael must know this House better than nearly any of us. His deep affection for and commitment to this place is obvious for anyone to see. He began his service 39 years ago, in 1964, after leaving Peterhouse, Cambridge. I have done a little arithmetic and discovered that only 17 current Members of the House have been here long enough to remember Sir Michael's first day. The other 97.5 per cent of us therefore have less experience of this place than he. So we are not losing simply a much valued and respected adviser but someone who has become a House institution.
	He held a great variety of offices during his time here. One was Private Secretary to the Government Chief Whip and Leader of the House. I know from experience how helpful—how essential—it is to have a member of the Clerks' Department to help to negotiate the bizarre, esoteric and arcane mysteries of this place. I am certain that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, both benefited similarly from Sir Michael's wisdom, guidance and discretion during their term in my office.
	In 1968, Sir Michael began a 15-year tenure as editor of the Journal of the Society of Commonwealth Clerks, called appropriately, your Lordships may think, The Table. When he took over in 1968, it was close to extinction; now it thrives and is edited by a Clerk of this House to this day. He made many contributions to Halsbury's Laws of England, Erskine May and many other parliamentary publications. In 1974 he became secretary of the Statute Law Committee.
	He was a very popular chair of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments. He achieved that post and distinction despite coming from an unelected second Chamber—no small achievement. It was the perfect job for him, who has been a life-long and effective promoter of inter-parliamentary contact.
	Even that brief sketch—as I recognise it to be—shows what an interesting and dedicated career Sir Michael has had. He would probably agree—if I may say so, it is typical of the modesty of the man that he has absented himself from this part of today's proceedings—that it is his time as the Clerk of the Parliaments since 1997 that has offered him the most concentrated challenges. We have seen a period of great change. He oversaw the first change in administration in 18 years. He piloted the House through the passage of the House of Lords Bill and its subsequent implementation. He played an important part in devising a way of electing the elected hereditary Peers, including his wise suggestion that the Electoral Reform Society should be engaged.
	His term has seen the implementation of the working practices package; the reform of the domestic committee structure; introduction of the new Code of Conduct; business planning; and, of course, implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He has seen many of his staff leave the main building to go to Old Palace Yard and Millbank House and has overseen a 20 per cent increase in the number of staff for whom he bears responsibility. Those are all important changes. Some are more prominent than others; but those that are not noticed behind the scenes are as important to the effective running of our House. There have been no visible procedural hitches.
	I am not sure about this next commendation, but he is the first Clerk of the Parliaments to have relied on e-mail and had a lap-top introduced at the Table. However, I am glad to see that we have kept our hereditary egg-timer. He has therefore, in his quiet, unassuming, efficient way, implemented more change than any other Clerk of the Parliaments in history. That is a tribute to his professionalism and his integrity.
	I said that I would come to the whole House. I know that the whole House will want to join in wishing Sir Michael and Lady Davies and their family many happy years. He will not waste his years in retirement. He will have more time for cricket, travel and decent wine. We shall all miss him and his advice, and we shall look back on his term in office with not only gratitude but affection and respect. I beg to move.
	Moved to resolve, That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir John Michael Davies, KCB, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir John Michael Davies executed the important duties of his office.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Motion tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and to follow him in paying tribute to Sir Michael Davies, Clerk of the Parliaments.
	I must admit that while the noble and learned Lord was speaking, I waited in nervous dread in case he would remark on the ancient lineage of the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, going back to 1280 no less, and whether he felt that there was still a role in modern Britain for such a post, or whether it would suffer the same fate—death by press release—as the Lord Chancellor. What a provocation the Clerks must be to the Prime Minister. But, no, I am delighted to say that the spirit of modernity has been dimmed, for the time being anyway. The Clerks, with wigs and gowns as well, are here to stay.
	We should need no reminding that the period over which Sir Michael has presided has been one of most extraordinary change in our House—the greatest that we have seen since the 1650s. Indeed, in one sense, Sir Michael is the last Clerk of the Parliaments, or at least the last Clerk of the old House that was replaced by the Act of 1999. It is not the least tribute to him, and to the team of loyal servants of this House, that he has led so successfully and has presided so scrupulously over that period of change. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, that change was brought about not only through composition but also by the change of government in 1997—not foreseen by all of us—but it was a seamless transfer that exemplified all that is best about those who serve the House. Through it all, Sir Michael's quiet authority has been accepted without question by the most experienced Peers and the most recent arrivals in the House. I know that I am not alone in saying that he has embodied something of profound importance—the thread of continuity between old and new, with which the courtesies and freedoms of the House are so closely bound.
	He is also a patient man. After all, he has sat at the Table through the longest Session that the House has known in modern times, through the biggest Bill for years and the one with the largest number of amendments ever. All those we have seen in the past two Parliaments and in record numbers of sittings of Grand Committees as well. I am not sure to what extent Sir Michael is a fan of Grand Committees, but he has embraced modernisation, has exemplified the spirit of duty that is the tradition of the House, and has even endured the new House Committee and the language of management consultants. But, unlike the rest of us, he has remained astute enough to contrive to escape the novelty of a September sitting.
	It would be invidious to pick out aspects of Sir Michael's service, but not the least was the consummate skill with which he achieved the success of the hereditary Peers elections in 1999—a novelty for the House where the very word "elections" has not always been welcome. There is no doubt that the success of the by-elections was due in part to the splendid organisation of the Clerk's office.
	Sir Michael has always been fair and non-partisan. His advice has always been clear and consistent, even though I have not always agreed with it. The office of the Clerk of the House has been well looked after under Sir Michael Davies, as I know it will continue to be in the hands of his successor.
	On behalf of the Opposition, I wish Sir Michael and Lady Davies well in what we hope will be a very long, happy and active retirement. We hope that we shall on occasions still see him in this place. His knowledge, experience and wisdom are too great to lie untapped for long. He has a worthy successor, but Sir Michael Davies will be much missed from your Lordships' House.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the ancient lineage of Clerks of the Parliaments—a very proud tradition of which Sir Michael is a part.
	I should like to refer for a moment to the ancient lineage of Sir Michael himself. His grandfather was a cleric in the Church of Wales and was one of the great antiquarians of Welsh history. His father was a distinguished member of the Indian Civil Service, and in that capacity learned to love India very deeply and to bring up his son with a similar affection for that great subcontinent. His mother was a niece of the great Archbishop Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was once referred to by the late Sir Winston Churchill as the only half-crown item in a sixpenny bazaar. Of course, no insult is intended to the right reverend Prelates with whom we work so closely.
	As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has said, Sir Michael entered the House of Lords in 1964 and steadily worked through a huge period of change and alteration. He did so with great distinction and with a very calm sense of judgment. I understand that when he entered it, the House of Lords was a relatively leisurely place. His mother is said to have asked him why he always appeared to catch a later train than his father and to come back on an earlier one. That happy situation was not to last long. After a few years, Sir Michael found himself on a treadmill, which steadily became faster moving, and throughout the whole period of his career managed to keep up with, and indeed to keep ahead of, that treadmill. It would not be unreasonable to say that, had the title not been seized some time ago by someone else, Sir Michael remained the great helmsman through the choppy seas of change; and I say that with due deference to Mao Tse-Tung, who, of course, preceded him by some years.
	In addition to Sir Michael's very distinguished and committed service to the House, there beats beneath his impeccable attire a somewhat more rebellious heart. Many of your Lordships will know of his great passion in the field of team games—a man who loves cricket, croquet and hockey and who, in the love of those games, combines three of the most gentlemanly forms of team sport with some of the most vicious manipulation known to man. Some of your Lordships may also know that Sir Michael is extremely fond of attending parties and is a thoroughly engaging, attractive and charming person to have at a party.
	Finally, your Lordships may not know, as I have recently discovered from my research, that his parents travelled overland to India when they were already in their late 60s, and that Sir Michael's favourite form of travel is to live in small tents in Greenland. I trust that in his happy retirement he and Lady Davies will have further opportunities to take their tents to remote parts of the world.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, it is my privilege to add to the tributes to Sir Michael Davies on behalf of all Cross-Benchers.
	His career and achievements have already been covered. I should like to mention in particular his unfailing courtesy and approachability. All on these Benches will have had occasion to seek or read his sound advice. The Clerk of the Parliaments must be non-party political, as are Cross-Benchers. But whereas Peers who sit on these Benches may and do indicate a preference for one or other party's view when they go through the Division Lobbies, Clerks of the Parliaments are never at liberty to indicate their political bias. They are the unrivalled independents and are therefore able to serve under both main political parties, when in government, with equal and unbiased loyalty.
	Such a sense of duty is a very special and admirable trait, which has served this country well over many generations. But to ensure that it continues, we need to be able to encourage and develop those uniquely valuable qualities in each succeeding generation. We have clearly benefited greatly from it in the case of Sir Michael and in the ranks of the high grade Clerks who follow him. His period as Clerk of the Parliaments has been one of the more momentous for the House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord President has reminded your Lordships of all that has taken place and is taking place in the House. We owe a great debt to Sir Michael, who has helped to ensure that those changes are being successfully meshed with the numerous other longstanding orders and practices of your Lordships' House.
	If I could single out just one of many pieces of advice that Sir Michael has given for the benefit of this House it would be a minute that he wrote to the usual channels immediately following the announcement of the Government's intended changes to the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. He and his colleagues had little forward knowledge of what was afoot, but they produced a most helpful and comprehensive guide to the many issues that would need to be addressed. He has also done much to ensure that the support and backing that we enjoy in this House from the authorities who look after the Palace as a whole is dovetailed with the needs of the other place. His has been a productive time in an area that for many years has been a tricky and testing part of the Clerk's many responsibilities.
	The workload of this House has undoubtedly grown in Sir Michael's time. He holds a number of statutory and regulatory positions, including Accounting Officer, Corporate Officer, employer of the staff of the House, Registrar of the Court of Parliament and custodian of the records of the House. The whole House has been fortunate to have his guidance and leadership though these testing times.
	On behalf of all Cross-Benchers, I extend our warm thanks and good wishes to Sir Michael, his wife and family for the years ahead.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford would very much have liked to pay tribute to Sir Michael. Bishop Richard has had a prior engagement with an orthopaedic surgeon and a new hip on Monday. I know that the House will wish him a speedy recovery and return to the fray in the autumn.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the turnover on these Benches is a little quicker than elsewhere in the House. That gives the Clerk of the Parliaments the regular task of inducting fresh-faced prelates, most recently the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, into the manners and morals of the House. We are all grateful for Sir Michael's skill in keeping us on the straight and narrow—which is no mean task—around the rather windy corridors of Westminster and generally for all his warm and ready advice.
	Reference has already been made to Sir Michael's ecclesiastical pedigree. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was going to say that Sir Michael was the only half-crown item in a six-penny bazaar. She could have gone back a generation further: Sir Michael's great-grandfather, Frederick Temple, was the Archbishop of Canterbury at the turn of the century. Aged 81, in 1902, he had to organise the arrangements for the coronation of Edward VII. It was a particularly onerous task because, after Victoria's long reign, hardly anyone could remember what had happened at the previous coronation.
	Three main problems emerged. First, how could the service be conducted as efficiently and quickly as possible, as the King demanded, within the bounds of dignity and decorum? Secondly, what were the bishops to wear? Some things never change, my Lords. Those were the days before cope and mitre were de rigeur. How many parts of the King's anatomy were to be anointed? Those delicate questions were carefully resolved by the archbishop after extensive consultation, including an instruction to the Bishop of London, his preacher, to stay within five minutes' contact from him.
	Temple's biographer comments that,
	"his grasp of practical matters was as shrewd as ever".
	Bishops have not always had that reputation. In Temple's biography, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Runcie, recalled a student from Rugby School, where Temple had been headmaster, saying of him, "He was a brute, but a just brute". We cannot say that of Sir Michael. We can only pay tribute to his sense of decency and justice.
	At the coronation, all was well until the archbishop went to pay homage, sank to his knees for the purpose and could not get up again. A paper reported that he,
	"was seen to stagger and reel as if in a faint".
	Having been offered something to drink by the Archbishop of York, he exclaimed, "It is my legs not my stomach that is the problem".
	I doubt very much that his great-grandson has ever staggered and reeled these past 39 years, as he has rendered such exceptional service to Parliament. However, Sir Michael has followed in his great-grandfather's footsteps in the practical wisdom and grasp of detail that Temple is said to have shown at the coronation. We shall miss many aspects of his character. Perhaps above all, from these Benches, as we look directly at Sir Michael, we shall miss the wry smile that sometimes came across his face when some particularly poignant or significant moment was reached in the affairs of the House. By God's grace, we wish Sir Michael and Lady Davies a long and happy retirement.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, since I am one of the only 17 survivors whom the Leader has discovered were Members of the House when the young Michael Davies first joined the Parliament Office in 1964, perhaps I may add a further tribute. We worked together closely in the early 1970s, during the time that I had succeeded the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is in his place, as Leader of the House, when Sir Edward Heath was Prime Minister. During those years, Michael Davies was my private secretary.
	We were near contemporaries at the time. We had children of the same age. I remember vividly at a State Opening of Parliament his children and mine from that little-known balcony adjoining the Leader's room, getting a bird's eye view of the procession when the Queen arrived. As private secretary, he showed his potential within the Parliament Office to rise right to the top. In my case, it was the start of a friendship that was to last for three decades.
	Throughout that period, I am confident that we can all agree Sir Michael has been a fine public servant. He has been accessible to provide sound, wise advice to all those who consulted him but never pressed it on those who did not wish to hear whatever advice he might be expected to give. There can be no doubt that the legacy of his long period of exceptional service to the House will endure.
	On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor do communicate this resolution to the said Sir John Michael Davies, KCB.

Speakership of the House

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee to consider the future arrangements for the Speakership of the House in the light of the Government's announcement that it is intended to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and to make recommendations:
	L. Alexander of Weedon,
	L. Ampthill,
	L. Carter,
	L. Desai,
	L. Freeman,
	B. Gould of Potternewton,
	L. Lloyd of Berwick (Chairman),
	L. Marsh,
	B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer,
	L. Tordoff,
	L. Trefgarne;
	That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the Committee shall report by the end of the Session;
	And that the Committee do meet on Tuesday 15th July at 11 a.m.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I speak purely as a Back-Bencher. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is greatly to be welcomed as the chairman of the committee. I hope very much that his deliberations will result in a report that all of us will feel able to take forward. Is it not marginally surprising that, with two former Speakers, three former Chairmen of Ways and Means, and three former Deputy Speakers, that expertise is not to be available in the deliberations of the committee when it draws its conclusions?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the noble Lords named on the list will be very good, I am sure. The job of the Committee of Selection was fairly easy because only 11 names were put forward for the 11 vacancies.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Aviation (Offences) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Skills Strategy

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the Government's Skills Strategy.
	"We are today publishing a White Paper that sets out the Government's long-term strategy for improving and sustaining the development of skills in this country. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I believe that there is a consensus in this House, and more widely, about the need for this country to raise its skill levels. We must do that in order to become more competitive, to raise living standards, to increase productivity, and to offer better opportunities for all.
	"It is widely recognised that, if we are to achieve the economic success we all want, our most pressing educational challenge is to raise skills at all levels. It is in this area, rather than primary, secondary or higher education, that this country lags behind our international competitors. For example, the proportion of our workforce qualified to the crucial intermediate level of technical and craft skills is low at 28 per cent compared with 51 per cent in France and 65 per cent in Germany.
	"This is despite the fact that we have made progress in recent years. For example, the number of vocational A-levels and vocational GCSEs awarded has risen by over 40,000 in one year to reach 128,000 in 2002; the number of young people on modern apprenticeships has risen to over 234,000 in 2002; 75 per cent of 16 to 18 year-olds now stay on in education or training, the highest level since 1996.
	"Despite these advances, there remain major shortfalls: workforce skills are lower in Britain than in many other countries; there are persistent skills deficits in such important areas as technical and craft skills, maths, and management and leadership; too many adults lack the skills and qualifications needed for sustainable employability; too many young people are leaving education without the skills that employers need.
	"These shortfalls are serious. This White Paper addresses them.
	"We have consulted widely. The overwhelming view, which I heartily share, is that the need now is not for piecemeal initiatives or clever tactical gimmicks. It is to make much better use of what is already there and to put in place a strategic approach. We need a coherent, long-term, national strategy which provides easy access to high quality training, across the full range of skills from basic to advanced. It must be based upon a framework which offers flexibility, relevance and choice. It must deliver the skills which are needed by both employees and employers, both jobseekers and the retired.
	"The main elements of this framework can be easily set out. They are, first, at national level, a network of 23 sector skills councils, to be fully in place by next summer. They will cover the major sectors of the economy. The councils are a major new voice for employers and employees in their sector. They are charged with identifying the sector's present and future skill needs, ensuring that qualifications and training meet those needs, and getting employers to act together to invest in skills to raise productivity. They place employers and the workplace centre stage.
	"Secondly, at regional level, a powerful new partnership between regional development agencies and the learning and skills councils will link regional economic development goals with the skills to achieve them, focused on the needs of learners and employers. This will tie in business support services, so that businesses can get better access to the advice and help that they need.
	"Thirdly, at local level, training programmes—whether delivered in colleges or the workplace—will be sharply focused upon meeting those skill priorities, in a truly demand-led and so responsive system.
	"This simple framework will help people gain skills at all levels. It will create a regime in which the education and training services genuinely have to respond to the demands of both potential students—often employees—and employers.
	"It will mean expansion of modern apprenticeships to help more young people move from school into high quality, work-based training. We will lift the current age cap so that adults will also be able to benefit. It will mean new opportunities for the millions of adults who do not currently possess a good foundation of skills for employability to get their first level 2 qualification. It will mean that the Skills for Life campaign in which adults gain basic literacy and numeracy skills will be extended to include information and communications technologies. It will mean more training to fill skills gaps at the higher technician and craft levels—the so-called level 3—to meet regional or sectoral priorities. It will mean that our new foundation degrees will be developed and expanded to meet the ever-growing demand from employers for advanced vocational skills.
	"To build this ladder of opportunity, we will introduce major reforms. We will develop a framework of qualifications for adults based on units and credits which give learners and employers more flexibility to put together the package of training they want. In addition, we will guarantee protection for leisure learning, particularly for pensioners and people on low incomes. We will ensure greater employer involvement in the design and delivery of modern apprenticeships. We will provide better, clearer information for employers and potential students about the opportunities which exist and the support which is available, including an employees guide to good training. We will expand the network of union learning representatives, focused upon encouraging the low-skilled to engage in training. We will give a new guarantee of free tuition for any adult without a good foundation of skills for employability, to get the training they need to gain a first level 2 qualification. We will introduce a new adult learning grant to support full-time adult learners in these priority groups to meet the costs of learning. We will use our employer training pilots to inform and guide our future national employers' training programme.
	"Better skills are needed for Britain to flourish. Those skills are the key to our economic success in an increasingly competitive world. They are also critical to our future in the European Union. The economic reform agenda agreed in Lisbon in 2000 reflects the importance of skills across Europe. Many of the topics addressed in this White Paper reflect the concerns shared by our European partners. They reflect our determination to tackle the challenges of skills and mobility across the Union.
	"My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to the House on 9th June in his Statement on Economic and Monetary Union that,
	"labour market flexibility and structural economic reform [is] at the heart of the new . . . policy guidelines for Europe";
	that,
	"Britain [must] have the necessary flexibility to sustain growth and employment";
	and that,
	"we are making structural reforms that will bring increased flexibility to our economy".
	This flexibility was the core of the Chancellor's second test for membership of economic and monetary union.
	"The Government believe that the White Paper which I am publishing today is a major contribution to this increased flexibility which is necessary to ensure that the British economy could respond quickly and efficiently to changes in economic conditions inside the single currency area should the UK decide to join the economic and monetary union. Our proposals will help to ensure that the supply of skills in the labour market matches the skills that are in demand from employers, and they will put in place mechanisms to eliminate mismatches in the demand and supply of different skills.
	"The changes which I set out today represent the most ambitious agenda yet seen to tackle some very deep-seated and long-standing weaknesses in our national skills base. They have been developed through a strong partnership between my department and my colleagues in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government will lead by example by ensuring that each central government department addresses its own skills needs and gaps in the way that I have described.
	"Even more important, this strategy represents not simply a government initiative, but a commitment by all the main social partners—the Government, the CBI, the TUC and the Small Business Council. All will be represented in the Skills Alliance which we are establishing to carry through the implementation of these proposals, in a sustained, determined campaign finally to tackle those skills weaknesses which have dogged us for so long.
	"I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but, sadly, as before, I must start by referring to yet another example of contempt for Parliament. We have read endless newspaper and media-leaked reports in recent days. There were meetings last night with representatives of public bodies, as part of the launch of the strategy. Only this morning, the Secretary of State talked in some detail about the proposals. Once again, as a last resort, there was information for Parliament.
	I am sure that, as with each of the previous education Statements repeated by the noble Baroness in this place, the noble Baroness will offer to report our disdain for such contempt of Parliament to the Secretary of State. We know, however, that, so far, that has had no effect, and the practice continues. That is no personal criticism of the Minister, whom I know and respect. She is diligent in her work in this House. The contempt for Parliament lies with her ministerial colleagues in another place.
	As the noble Baroness suggested, there is consensus on the need for a skills strategy. There is a real challenge for skills and training, but the Statement represents a missed opportunity. It lacks clarity and focus. The paper has been long awaited. Where is the vision? Where is the radical edge? We have the same old predictable centralised and complex bureaucracy. There is a plethora of national, regional and local cross-cutting structures. Yet more funding will be dissipated in a system in which people spend more time in liaising and co-ordinating than in training. At the end of that costly waste of time, the funding left to train plumbers and construction workers will be extremely limited.
	The big visionary idea would appear to be the payment of £30 a week to entice people into education. My first question to the noble Baroness is: what sort of numbers is it envisaged will find that a great attraction? What system will be in place to avoid fraudulent recipients and/or providers, as with individual learning accounts?
	What of the replacement for individual learning accounts? Only weeks ago, we were told that it was a high priority for government. Ministers insisted that a similar wide-ranging scheme would replace individual learning accounts, but, in the Statement, we see only a fraction of the scope of the original scheme. The report has dismayed consultants, who say that many adult learners will be left with no chance to develop new skills. Training provider Hairnet is reported to have said that it was amazed by the news. It said that it had hoped that the White Paper would offer adult learners at least part of what had been included in the ILA scheme. A Hairnet spokeswoman told the press:
	"We can't believe that there will be nothing considering the government's stated commitment to adult training, especially in IT fields".
	Once again, England is missing out. Seemingly, England is left with no ILA replacement scheme similar to the original, while schemes similar to the original, with lessons learnt, will be introduced in Wales and Scotland. Although we know of the expensive debacle of the ILA scheme, many were under the impression that lessons had been learnt by the Government and that an improved and better managed scheme would take its place. My second question is: why has that not happened and why has it been abandoned?
	It is regrettable that the Statement does not include a major schools dimension, emphasising the importance of scientific, technological and vocational options in the curriculum. There is no mention of schools education. I agree with my honourable friend Damian Green who, in another place, quoted Carolyn Hayman, the chief executive of the Foyer Federation, an admirable body. This morning, she said:
	"In practice, those who fail to gain qualifications while at school are unlikely to fulfil their potential later in life".
	She is right. The decision to concentrate the strategy on adults only is deeply regrettable.
	Will the Minister define a "unique learning identifier"? Am I right in thinking that it could be an ID card? If it is an ID card, to what other uses—compulsory or otherwise—would it be put?
	What is it that further education colleges and providers of training are not doing that they could do better, if they could only receive the funding, rather than creating yet more processing bodies? What is the timescale for the proposals, given that the snail's pace progress of the setting up of sector skills councils does not bode well for the speedy transformation of training in this country? At that point, I pay tribute to industry for the £23 billion spent on education and training. That is three times the budget of the learning and skills councils.
	It is beyond belief that, in the Statement, the Secretary of State should boast that it represents the most ambitious agenda yet. Crowded in on the same territory are such diverse and unaccountable bodies as learning and skills councils, sector skills councils and regional development agencies. To those, one can add the University for Industry, learndirect, colleges, training providers, county councils and local education committees. On the horizon are the regional assemblies, which, if we are to believe what we were told during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, will also have a role in such matters.
	Just liaising between those bodies and sustaining territorial integrity and the complementary delivery of policies and services will be a nightmare. The regional dimension of the proposals is worrying. What matters to young people who have lost out in education requires to be identified and provided for locally. For some young people who dip out of education, meeting the cost of getting out of a rural village to a provider is the only inhibiting factor against their taking up a training option. Thirty pounds a week will probably meet only the fare to get to the provider and will do nothing to pay for the training.
	Any description of the strategy as a "simple framework" ought to be a candidate for prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act. It is not what is being done; it is the way in which it is being done. As I said, there is a need for a good, competent, effective skills strategy. Once again, however, central control, complex procedures, endless time-consuming liaison and co-ordination and costly bureaucracy is the Government's answer to a problem. Another opportunity has been missed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. We share the view of the Opposition that it is disappointing that, once again, we learnt of the content of the White Paper and the Statement from the "Today" programme—in spite of the Government's disagreements with that programme—and from the press, rather than in Parliament first of all.
	Nevertheless, on these Benches, we are possibly rather more welcoming of the White Paper and of the Statement than are the Opposition. First, perhaps because we read the Statement together with the 14-to-19 proposals that are coming forward from the Government, we see it as part of a relatively comprehensive strategy for the skills sector. We are delighted to see, for the first time, the Government beginning to map out a pathway for vocational education and training from schools, through colleges and, if appropriate, on to the universities. In particular, we are pleased to see that it is proposed that the system should be unit-based, enabling the individual to build up qualifications over time in blocks.
	We are also pleased to see the emphasis on modern apprenticeships. It is sad that, in this country, the concept of apprenticeship has almost disappeared. It is good that the modern apprenticeship, which, appropriately, is much shorter than the original seven-year apprenticeship—it is usually a three or four-year apprenticeship—is given new emphasis. We are beginning to see young people recognising it as a viable form of training, but not enough young people recognise it as a viable alternative route. Too many schools channel people into the academic, rather than the vocational, route, and all the incentives in schools point in that direction. Too many children and parents think that the right way to go is straight through A-levels and on to university, rather than to go through practical and vocational training that can lead to equivalent level qualifications. This provides a framework that provides those routes, but we are not confident yet that it is fully in place.
	Finally, we are pleased, too, to see the recognition of the importance of skills in the innovation agenda and the role to be played at the regional level. In my research at the University of Sussex, I did a fair amount of work on the role of regions in helping to regenerate industry and skills. The skills agenda was a very important part of that. From time to time I have been very critical of successive governments for not paying enough attention to it. I am very pleased to see that.
	However, we have a number of criticisms. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, there seems to be a quite unnecessary number of quangos, both at the national and, perhaps particularly, the regional level. There are the regional development agencies, local learning and skills councils, Jobcentre Plus, business links and so forth. It will be very difficult for employers, colleges and, for that matter, individuals to unravel all these networks. Again, we are sad that, as yet, the regional development agencies are unelected. We look forward to a time when some of these agencies can be properly accountable to the electorate.
	Secondly, while we welcome the universal entitlement to training to level 2 paid for by the state, we are very unhappy that this is not extended to level 3. There had been some talk of extending that entitlement to 19 to 30 year-olds studying at level 3, but that seems to have been withdrawn. Instead, we now have what might be called a regional lottery for support at level 3. Who will make the decisions? Will it be the planners, the employers or the students? It is not at all clear from the proposals.
	Thirdly, the introduction of the new adult learner grant is a positive step. Can the Minister explain why a full-time level 4 student studying at university from home is reckoned to need a grant of £3,000 per year for maintenance purposes, whereas the equivalent maintenance for a student at a further education college is £1,500 only? Can the Minister look at the support for modern apprenticeships again? We welcome the lifting of the age bar from 25 to 28, but why not lift it altogether? If adults are expected to extend their working life to 70, is there not need for an adult modern apprenticeship? There are a great many people in their twenties deciding that having obtained little in the way of qualifications they would like to train properly for a skill, such as plumbing or carpentry. Currently, often there are few grants available for them.
	Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that the foundation degree, which plays a part, is not regarded as an end qualification, but as a staging post to be built on to go forward to an honours degree and postgraduate qualification?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am pleased to have got through the Statement with my bad throat. I am grateful for the warmish words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in welcoming it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would expect, I shall pick up her first issue of contempt. I appreciate the comments that the noble Baroness made about me. I have a copy of a letter sent by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Speaker of the House of Commons in which he clearly says that the purpose of the breakfast meeting today was to discuss plans for the national skills alliance. It was not to launch the White Paper. I believe that my right honourable friend fully complied with correct parliamentary procedure in the way in which he made his Statement earlier in another place.
	Both noble Baronesses raised the overarching issue of quangos and the relationship between the different bodies. The core of the White Paper states that what we have on the ground are a number of different partners which are either involved in training from a national perspective—employers, the Trades Union Congress, and so forth—or are delivery partners. In fact, they already exist. One cannot differentiate and say, "Well, actually we do not need some of these partners". They all play a different and important role. The White Paper seeks to bring together those partners in the skills alliance to recognise the different roles that each will play—whether further education colleges, Jobcentre Plus or whatever the delivery agency—to ensure that they operate together on the ground.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right. I agree with her wholeheartedly. The need to identify the needs of young people and satisfy them must be the critical factor on which this White Paper and what ensues will be judged. By bringing them together at a national and regional level, we have a greater opportunity to provide appropriately.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, specifically asked what we thought would be gained by the roll-out of the new adult learning grant. In the first pilot year, we estimate that we shall help some 12,200 learners studying for a full-time level 2 or level 3 qualification. Rolled out nationally, the grant could help more than 60,000 learners a year. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the successor scheme to the individual learning accounts. We have discussed this issue several times in your Lordships' House. When we looked at the options, we believed that setting up a small, separate initiative was not the way forward to achieve the original vision behind the individual learning accounts and to take an integrated approach. In view of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it is important to note that part of the focus on free learning at level 2 will be to broaden the range of training provided in order to bring within the scope of public funding those private providers which have something distinctive to offer and can meet the necessary quality standards. That is an important factor in our decision to move forward in this way.
	I shall not comment on what Wales may or may not be doing. It is for the Welsh Assembly to publish its own views and ideas.
	The purpose of the unique learning number is specifically to address the issue raised by many young people and those involved in training. We have different identifiers in different organisations. In order to reduce bureaucracy it might make a great deal of sense for learners to transfer between organisations and providers in a simpler and more straightforward way.
	I acknowledge the commitment by industry and the noble Baroness referred to its £23 billion input. That is why we have consulted widely with industry and employers to ensure that the new strategy is very much economic-led and the need to have skills that are appropriate to the economy of the future. It is about integration.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the modern apprenticeship, which she is very keen to see developed. I am pleased that we have some of the highest levels since they were introduced in 1994; that is, more than 234,000 young people on a modern apprenticeship. That is a good indication of its value, but I agree that more needs to be done. I also accept the need to ensure that vocational routes into employment are perceived as being as important as academic routes. Those issues have been debated many times in your Lordships' House.
	I am also very pleased that the RDAs play a significant role on the regional scene. As I already said, the economic basis is absolutely critical.
	Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to foundation degrees, which indeed are a staging post that will allow people to continue to full degrees.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I welcome the Government's initiative on encouraging vocational training. It is absolutely right to do this at a regional level. That point was made by Professor Porter in a recent study about productivity for the DTI. He identified a weakness in management and leadership as a reason for weaknesses in productivity in British industry. Does the White Paper address this problem? Could the Minister say something about that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree that it is important to develop excellent leadership and management skills. Such skills are very important in the schools system, but they are absolutely critical in the business environment. That is why we have a new programme valued at £10 million of public money to support leaders and owner-managers, in particular those in charge of small and medium-sized enterprises. My noble friend will know of the chartered manager award from the Chartered Management Institute. It offers managers a welcome opportunity to attain professional recognition. So we are fully supportive of the comments made by my noble friend.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have listened with enormous interest to the noble Baroness because, as she probably knows, this has long been an interest of mine. Some time ago I served as a commissioner on the Manpower Services Commission which considered exclusively these matters.
	It is interesting to note that the Government have sought to address these issues through yet another initiative. I am not sure which Secretary of State remarked that a day without a new initiative is a day lost, but we do see a great many new ones. However, I compliment the Government on the magazine they have produced to accompany the strategy. It is not illustrated. No doubt a little money has been saved and I am sure that the document is just as convincing without pictures. Although I have not yet had time to read it carefully having collected it only a few minutes ago, I do have a question to put to the noble Baroness which, from my current experience, gives me cause for concern.
	The noble Baroness knows that I live in Scotland. Although the initiative is not to apply there, it is my experience that the best way to resolve these problems is for a further education college to have local centres which then become a magnet for people who want skills training. The local centres should be welcoming and should see to it that all the necessary skills training is available, accessible and local so that people do not have to travel too far.
	The White Paper pays tribute to further education colleges in England, which I know are doing a great deal to develop their efforts in this direction. Given that, is it really a good idea to consider setting up yet another quango on a fairly local basis to do the same thing? Surely it is absolutely critical to ensure that there is a hub to which older learners and those in need of skills training may go, along with younger people and the unemployed. In that way, everyone congregates in one place where they can receive advice and be catered for in a local centre. Are the Government sure that that will not be made more difficult to achieve if another quango seeks to do the same thing?
	I fear that this is, above all, just another new initiative and that we may find that it competes with what is already on the ground. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House what is to be the link between the local initiatives to be undertaken by further education colleges and the work of the new councils? How will they avoid the risk of each detracting from what the other is doing?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, likes our new document. I would comment only that a picture can be worth a thousand words. On occasion I find that they lighten documents, but perhaps we should leave that discussion for another debate.
	As always, the noble Baroness speaks with great authority about the practicalities of what happens on the ground. She is absolutely right to point out that if what we do fails to address the need for local bases where learners can acquire the teaching they want and relate to it in a local way, then we will simply not have succeeded in what we are trying to do.
	We have brought together several elements at the national level. A skills strategy requires impetus, which is why we have an alliance chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, along with the involvement of the Treasury and from the Department for Work and Pensions. Together they bring to the strategy a critical cross-governmental approach. We must link major organisations who have a real interest in this, and not least the Small Business Council which will have much to say on training issues, and then take those links down to the regional level in terms of our requirements for economic development. I say that because the skills strategy is not only for the kind of expertise we need now but, as I am sure the noble Baroness will acknowledge, to ensure that we have in place the skills we are going to need in the future to compete in the constantly changing global economy. That also takes account of the fact that very rarely nowadays do people take on a job which will last them a lifetime.
	Given that, I believe that there is a need to deploy strategic thinking at both the national and the regional level. We are not trying to introduce what might be called a "traditional" new initiative, which is perhaps what the noble Baroness suggested; rather we have brought together what already exists, given it new impetus and put in what we think is a relevant and appropriate mechanism. But the fundamental proof will be seen when local individuals are given the opportunity to acquire skills—to achieve that much-needed level 2, which is most vital. It is probably worth reminding noble Lords that most people given training by employers are those who are already quite well qualified. Those lacking basic skills tend not to be offered training. So our commitment needs to concentrate on developing the provision of basic skills.
	Further, we must ensure that people are given the opportunity to access, through local further education colleges, through Jobcentre Plus offices, through their employer and so forth, a route to a form of learning that is absolutely right for them. As the strategy filters down it should ensure that from whatever point individuals begin they will find themselves on the road to training. That, I think, will be the proof of the pudding.

Water Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill in respect of fluoridation.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]

Lord Tordoff: I shall first call the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to move Amendment No. 1. I shall then call Amendments Nos. 2 to 13, which are amendments to Amendment No. 1. Proceedings on each amendment will be concluded before we move on to the next amendment. When Amendments Nos. 2 to 13 have been dealt with, I shall then put the Question on Amendment No. 1.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 1:
	After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
	"FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES
	(1) The WIA is amended as follows.
	(2) For section 87 (fluoridation of water supplies at request of health authorities) there is substituted—
	"87 FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES AT REQUEST OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
	(1) If requested in writing to do so by a relevant authority, a water undertaker shall enter into arrangements with the relevant authority to increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by that undertaker to premises within the area specified in the arrangements.
	(2) But a water undertaker shall not be required by subsection (1) above to enter into any such arrangements until it has been given an indemnity with respect to the arrangements in accordance with section 90 below (and any regulations made under that section).
	(3) In this section and the following provisions of this Chapter—
	(a) references to a relevant authority—
	(i) in relation to areas in England, are to a Strategic Health Authority established under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977;
	(ii) in relation to areas in Wales, are to the Assembly; and
	(b) references to water supplied by a water undertaker are to water supplied (whether by a water undertaker or a licensed water supplier) to premises using the supply system of that undertaker.
	(4) The area specified in arrangements under this section may be—
	(a) in relation to England, the whole or any part of the area of the Strategic Health Authority in question;
	(b) in relation to Wales, such area comprising the whole or any part of Wales as the Assembly may determine.
	(5) The arrangements shall include provisions designed to secure that the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to premises in the area in question is, so far as reasonably practicable, maintained at a target concentration of one milligram per litre.
	(6) The arrangements shall be on such terms as may be agreed between the relevant authority and the water undertaker or, in the absence of agreement, determined in accordance with section 87A below.
	(7) The terms may, for example, include provision—
	(a) requiring payments to be made by the relevant authority to the water undertaker;
	(b) specifying circumstances in which the requirement to increase the fluoride content may be temporarily suspended; and
	(c) for the variation of the arrangements at the request of the relevant authority.
	(8) The relevant authority shall consult the Authority in relation to the terms to be included in any arrangements under this section (in particular, terms which affect the operation of the water undertaker's supply system).
	(9) The fluoride content of water supplied by a water undertaker may not be increased except in accordance with arrangements entered into by the undertaker under this section, but this shall not prevent—
	(a) increases made by a third party on behalf of the undertaker in accordance with those arrangements; or
	(b) incidental increases which may occur as a result of operational blending.
	87A FLUORIDATION ARRANGEMENTS: DETERMINATION OF TERMS
	(1) This section applies if a relevant authority and a water undertaker fail to agree the terms of arrangements requested by the relevant authority pursuant to section 87(1) above.
	(2) In relation to areas in England—
	(a) the relevant authority may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for determination;
	(b) following such a reference, the Secretary of State shall determine the terms of the arrangements as he sees fit; and
	(c) the determination of the Secretary of State shall be final.
	(3) In relation to areas in Wales—
	(a) the Assembly may—
	(i) determine the terms of the arrangements itself as it sees fit; or
	(ii) refer the matter for determination by such other person as it considers appropriate; and
	(b) the determination of the Assembly or, as the case may be, the other person shall be final.
	(4) Following determination under this section of the terms to be included in any arrangements—
	(a) the relevant authority shall give notice of the determination to the water undertaker in question; and
	(b) the undertaker shall be deemed to have entered into the arrangements under section 87(1) above on the terms determined under this section with effect from the day after the date of the notice.
	(5) References in this Chapter to arrangements entered into under section 87(1) above shall include arrangements deemed to have been entered into under that section by virtue of subsection (4)(b) above.
	87B FLUORIDATION ARRANGEMENTS: COMPLIANCE
	(1) It shall be the duty of each water undertaker to comply with any arrangements entered into by it under section 87(1) above.
	(2) Where, pursuant to any such arrangements, the fluoride content of any water is increased, the increase may be effected only by the addition of one or more of the following compounds of fluorine—
	hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6)
	disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)
	(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, water to which fluoride has been added pursuant to any such arrangements entered into by a water undertaker (with a view to its supply in an area) may be supplied by that or any other undertaker to premises in any other area (whether or not that other area is the subject of arrangements under section 87(1) above).
	(4) Subsection (3) above applies if (and only if) the undertaker or undertakers concerned consider that it is necessary for the water to be supplied in the other area—
	(a) for the purpose of dealing with any serious deficiency in supply; or
	(b) in connection with the carrying out of any works (including cleaning and maintenance) by the undertaker concerned or, as the case may be, by the undertakers concerned, or by a licensed water supplier supplying water using its or their supply system.
	(5) In this section—
	(a) the reference, in subsection (3) above, to water to which fluoride has been added pursuant to arrangements includes a reference to water to which fluoride has been added by Scottish Water in exercise of the power conferred by section 1 of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985; and
	(b) in relation to a supply of such water by a water undertaker, the reference, in subsection (4) above, to the water undertakers concerned shall have effect as references to the water undertaker and Scottish Water.
	(6) In subsection (4) above, "serious deficiency in supply" means any existing or threatened serious deficiency in the supply of water (whether in quantity or quality) caused by an exceptional lack of rain or by any accident or unforeseen circumstances.
	(7) Arrangements entered into under section 87(1) above shall remain in force until the relevant authority, after giving reasonable notice to the water undertaker, terminates them."
	(3) In section 88 (power to vary permitted fluoridation agents), in subsection (1), for "87(4)" there is substituted "87B(2)".
	(4) After section 88 there is inserted—
	"88A POWER TO VARY TARGET CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that section 87(5) above is to have effect as if for "one milligram per litre" there were substituted a lower concentration specified in the order.
	(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different geographical areas, or for some such areas and not others.
	(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
	(5) For section 89 there is substituted—
	"89 CONSULTATION
	(1) Before taking any step mentioned in subsection (2) below, a relevant authority shall—
	(a) consult and ascertain opinion in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
	(b) comply with any prescribed requirements.
	(2) The steps are—
	(a) requesting a water undertaker to enter into arrangements under section 87(1) above;
	(b) requesting a water undertaker to vary any such arrangements in, or except in, prescribed circumstances or cases;
	(c) giving notice to a water undertaker under section 87B(7) above to terminate any such arrangements;
	(d) maintaining any such arrangements in prescribed circumstances.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision about—
	(a) the process which relevant authorities are to follow for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above;
	(b) the requirements which must be satisfied (with respect to the outcome of that process or otherwise) before a step mentioned in subsection (2) above may be taken.
	(4) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to a proposal by a relevant authority to take the step mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above if—
	(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State so directs the relevant authority;
	(b) in relation to Wales, the Assembly so determines,
	in each case, either generally or in relation to a particular proposal by the authority."
	(6) For section 90 of the WIA (indemnities in respect of fluoridation) there is substituted—
	"90 INDEMNITIES IN RESPECT OF FLUORIDATION
	(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, agree to indemnify any water undertaker in respect of liabilities which it may incur in complying with arrangements entered into by it pursuant to section 87(1) above.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to—
	(a) the matters in respect of which an indemnity may be given under subsection (1) above;
	(b) the form and terms of any such indemnity; and
	(c) such ancillary matters as he sees fit."
	(7) Section 91 of the WIA (pre-1985 fluoridation schemes) shall cease to have effect.
	(8) Schedule 7 to the WIA (pre-1985 fluoridation schemes) shall cease to have effect."

Lord Warner: In moving Amendment No. 1 standing in my name, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. Fluoridation is a sensitive issue and I welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to give local communities a real option of deciding whether fluoride should be added to their drinking water. Although we believe it is right for local communities to decide whether to fluoridate their water, we have every confidence in the briefing paper on the fluoridation of water and dental decay produced by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer, copies of which I have circulated to all Members of your Lordships' House.
	Dental decay among children and adults remains an extremely common disease which is largely preventable. It is closely related to socio-economic status. As the briefing paper points out, from a public health perspective water fluoridation is the delivery method of choice to bring about population improvements in dental health and should be considered locally when it is desired to reduce inequalities in levels of dental decay.
	There have been two recent newspaper articles by the same journalist raising concerns about fluoridation and health risks. The circulated briefing paper draws attention to the University of York and Medical Research Council reviews of evidence in this area. As the paper says, the York team found no evidence of an association between bone fractures, infant mortality or cancer and water fluoridation. The 2002 Medical Research Council review identified no particular research priority in this area. Moreover, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer are to report to Ministers in the autumn on the implications of the MRC report for government policy on fluoridation, well before any local consultations could take place.
	The main reason for Amendment No. 1 is that the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, consolidated in Sections 87 to 91 of the Water Industry Act 1991, has not achieved the policy intention of successive governments of letting local communities make decisions on fluoridation. In summary, Section 87(1) of the Act states that where a health authority applies to a water undertaker for its water to be fluoridated the undertaker "may" increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by it within that area. The effect has been to give water companies discretion over whether to agree applications to fluoridate and, on every occasion that a health authority has made an application, the water undertaker has turned it down. As a result, there have not been any new fluoridation schemes agreed since the Water (Fluoridation) Act was passed in 1985.
	This, I should hasten to add, is not because water companies have concerns about the effects of fluoridation; it is because they do not feel qualified to make decisions on what is essentially a public health issue. The water industry's representative body, Water UK, has asked on repeated occasions for the Act to be amended to put water companies under a statutory obligation to accede to requests from strategic health authorities to fluoridate their water where they can show that their populations are in favour. Hence our proposed amendment requires that the water undertaker "shall" enter into arrangements with the relevant authority to fluoridate. The "relevant authority" in England would be strategic health authorities but in Wales it would be the National Assembly for Wales. This is the main change we are proposing.
	We do not intend that water should be fluoridated come what may in those areas which do not currently receive naturally or artificially fluoridated water at a level capable of reducing dental decay. In fact, the enactment of the amendment may not lead to any new fluoridation schemes—that would depend on what people decided locally—but it would give local communities the choice of having their water supply fluoridated.
	The remainder of the section provides details of the arrangements between the water undertaker and the relevant authority, including payment, and, as at present, the target concentration of fluoride. Proposed new Section 87A introduces provision for determination where the relevant health authority and a water undertaker fail to agree the terms of an arrangement to fluoridate. We are not expecting disagreements but it is good legislative practice to include such a provision to avoid negotiations reaching a deadlock.
	Proposed new Section 87B restates the chemical compounds which are permitted to be used in fluoridating water and provides for water companies to suspend fluoridation for temporary periods due to operational exigencies such as droughts or plant maintenance.
	Proposed new Section 88A introduces a regulation-making power to reduce the target concentration of fluoride in drinking water below the one milligram per litre specified in Section 87(5) of the Act. This might be appropriate if it was found that, as a result of increased use of discretionary fluorides such as toothpaste and mouthwashes, the desired reductions in tooth decay could be achieved at a lower concentration of fluoride in water.
	The reason for using regulations is to provide additional flexibility in making changes of a technical nature which currently can be made only by amending primary legislation. However, because this is an important public health issue meriting debate in Parliament, we propose that the regulations are subject to affirmative resolution. The National Assembly for Wales would exercise the powers in relation to Wales and its scrutiny procedures will apply.
	Proposed new Section 89 provides for consultations. As I indicated, no new fluoridation scheme would go ahead without the support of the majority of the local population determined by local consultations conducted by strategic health authorities in England and the National Assembly in Wales. It is essential that the procedures followed command public confidence. We do not consider that the present provisions in Section 89 of the Water Industry Act for publicity and consultation go anywhere near far enough. For this reason we propose to introduce a regulation-making power to cover the detailed requirements.
	Taking into account the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee we have decided that these regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure and we will table an amendment to this effect in another place. The National Assembly for Wales will determine the content of the regulations for Wales and will no doubt consider and develop regulations that best meet the needs of Wales. Also on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we have decided that these regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure and we will table an amendment to this effect in another place.
	We intend that regulations should provide for the dissemination of the proposals through, for example, the press, radio, TV and leaflet drops, and for consultations involving public meetings, discussions on local TV and radio, helplines and websites, culminating in an objective means of measuring public opinion which ensures that the views of people from a wide range of backgrounds are represented. We will consult widely among those with expertise on the best methods of measuring public opinion, particularly among social groups which stand most to benefit from fluoridation but which do not always participate in public consultation exercises.
	The proposed new Section 90 proposes that the present provisions for indemnifying water companies are made more specific through a regulation-making power. We have in mind the use of model indemnities for England in the regulations which we would discuss with the water industry. The broad objective is to ensure that the liabilities of a water company which is required to introduce a fluoridation scheme are no more weighty than those of companies without schemes for England. The regulations in Wales will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. Amendment No. 14 removes the provision which would have enabled the Secretary of State to issue indemnities to licensed water suppliers. Our current thinking is that the relevant health authorities should only make arrangements with water undertakers and that the indemnities to the water undertakers would cover any sub-contracts they made with licensed water suppliers. We intend to discuss this assumption further with the water industry and, depending on the outcome, may make further amendments in another place. Whatever is decided, we will find a different drafting solution, so I shall still need to move Amendment No. 14.
	Amendment No. 15 is a provision which adds Schedule 7 to the Water Industry Act to the list of provisions which are to be repealed. That schedule regularised the position of pre-1985 water fluoridation schemes in the light of the provisions of that Act. It is proposed that there will be new provision in the Bill to deal with existing schemes by converting them to the new style of arrangement. Amendments to this effect will be introduced in another place. What is certain is that the existing Schedule 7 to the Water Industry Act will no longer be required.
	I remind the Committee that these amendments are being moved in response to the strength of opinion in another place on this issue and a commitment that the Government gave to do so. There is a strong body of opinion that local communities should have the right to make the choice to fluoridate their water to reduce dental decay, particularly among children. I have had many letters—as, I suspect, have other noble Lords—over the past week supporting the Government's approach on this issue and none opposing it. The Government are responding to people's concerns in a practical way. I beg to move.

Baroness O'Cathain: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
	Line 22, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) references to a water undertaker shall include and apply to any licensed water supplier which supplies water to premises within a specified area."

Baroness O'Cathain: I declare an interest as a director of a very small water company. I am not speaking today as a member of that board but, having been briefed by Water UK, for the industry as a whole—namely, water companies and water suppliers.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of what is intended by the amendments. Obviously, there is a great body of opinion which wishes to have the complete fluoridation of water throughout England. However, before I speak to the amendments, I should point out to the Minister that the reason the water companies were reluctant to bring in fluoridation after the 1985 Act was because they were convinced that the health authorities had not properly consulted affected customers. I am grateful that the consultation now will be extremely wide through the press, radio, discussion groups, helplines and websites. That will cover many of the problems. It was not a case of finance or necessarily of indemnities; it was that they did not wish to get involved. The emphasis that the Minister placed on it was not quite how I understood it to have been.
	The industry's position is that the legislative regime needs improving. First, decisions on and responsibility for fluoridation should be entirely matters for the health authorities and the Department of Health, subject to the following safeguards: maintenance of security of supply and, to that end, operational flexibility for the water companies, taking into account that supply zones may vary seasonally and in consequence of operational exigencies. Again, the Minister made the point that if there was a drought situation or specific local situations, there would be flexibility.
	Another point is that it should be a prerequisite to the initiation of fluoridation schemes that health authorities should co-operate with each other and consult the water companies. For example, a water company could supply a very large area which was covered by two or three health authorities. It is important that that point is not missed out. If they are to have all the responsibility, they need to find out whether those who would be affected are in favour of the proposal and there has to be joint acceptance by the local health authorities.
	There needs to be updated guidance on the specifications and procedures required to be achieved in relation to the construction and operation of fluoridation plant. There needs to be provision for the reimbursement by health authorities of all water companies' capital and operational costs of fluoridating water supplies. There also needs to be provision for full indemnities by the Department of Health to water companies for any liabilities that they may incur as a result of, and in any way connected with, the fluoridating of water supplies other than in respect of their own negligence, which one would not expect to be indemnified against.
	That point is essential to the whole issue of fluoridation. First, I accept without question the comments in the briefings. It is appalling to think that 50 per cent of the population of this country do not own a toothbrush. From that point of view, there is a very strong case for fluoridation to avoid the really awful problems of dental decay and dreadful toothache. As the Minister said, those usually occur in areas of social deprivation, where people may regard toothbrushes and toothpaste as unaffordable luxuries.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour—

Noble Lords: Lord Baldwin.

Baroness O'Cathain: I am sorry, I am getting my Prime Ministers mixed up. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, will be talking about the dangers that could result from fluoridation. We must always, in this House, avoid the law of unintended consequences. We really do not know about this. We have had experiences in the past with, dare I say, thalidomide, as well as asbestos, which were regarded as absolutely safe until way down the line.
	I know there has been fluoridation in the Birmingham area for the last two decades or more, but one still does not know. There is great anxiety among the water companies and the industry as a whole as to whether, if they are to introduce fluoridation on a widespread or, indeed, a token scale, any epidemiological studies show that people in Birmingham have a higher rate of Alzheimer's disease or bowel cancer. That might satisfy some of the concerns but there is still a latent fear that, in this litigious era, the water companies could be done out of business if such problems arose.
	The industry supports the principles of the Government's tabled amendments on the grounds that these meet, to a considerable extent, the concerns I have expressed. However, they need tightening up in certain respects, which is why I have tabled my amendments.
	The reason for tabling Amendment No. 2 is that in order that the fluoridation provisions may be effective it needs to be made clear that they apply in full to licensed water suppliers as well as to water undertakers.
	On Amendment No. 3, for the reasons I have already described, it is considered that the arrangements required to be entered into between the health authority and the water company ought to deal with all the matters listed in subsection (7).
	On Amendment No. 4, again as mentioned, I believe it needs to be made clear that the health authority should be responsible for all the water company's costs of effecting fluoridation. This is for the protection of the company and its customers. If it has huge capital investments which cost an enormous amount of money, the price of water will necessarily increase, and the increase might not be fair or equal throughout the country.
	Amendment No. 5 deals with the point that it is important that before initiating any fluoridation scheme, the health authority should first consult the water company on the practicalities. That is quite different from consulting the water company on the basis that it has consulted the local populace and there is a strong case for fluoridation. It is the practicalities we are concerned with here.
	On Amendment No. 6, given that the existing technical guidance is now 15 years old, the industry believes that there should be a legal requirement for the Government, after consultation, to provide up-to-date technical guidance on the specifications and procedures to be observed in relation to the construction and operation of fluoridation plant. This is for safety purposes and for the avoidance of disputes over what standards should be met and funded.
	Although the Drinking Water Inspectorate is now putting in hand revision of the technical guidance, the importance of having up-to-date standards is such that it should be put on a statutory basis. Chapter III of Part 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is the authority for the drinking water standards/regulations.
	Amendment No. 7 is in the interests of security of supply and operational flexibility, already mentioned in my introduction. It is important that proposed new Section 87B(3) and (4) should be extended to take account of all the operational exigencies described in the amendment.
	On Amendment No. 11, in the proposed new Section 90, if the scope of any permitted indemnity that may be provided by the Secretary of State is to be prescribed by regulations under proposed new subsection (2), then proposed new subsection (1) needs to be modified to take account of this. In this connection, on the basis that the Department of Health should take full responsibility for fluoridation, surely it should be mandatory for the department to provide indemnities to water companies.
	On Amendment No. 12, following on from Amendment No. 11, I believe there should be a duty on the Government to make regulations defining the scope of the indemnities that should be provided. To use the word "may" is an option; there cannot be an option on this.
	Already there is concern about the long-term effects of fluoridation, not only from the health point of view. At a dinner on Monday night, which was totally unconnected with the subject of water, someone who knew of my involvement as a marketing adviser to MAFF two decades ago asked whether I realised that fluoridation was going to cause a real problem for the growing of tomatoes by hydroponics. Hydroponics was the great thing two decades ago—tomatoes were grown solely in water. But there are concerns in the horticultural sector that adding fluoride to water could cause some problems with the fruit—tomatoes are a fruit, I am told. It could also cause problems to the hoses and pipes and all the kit involved in hydroponics. That is not part of my amendment, but these matters must be considered.
	Finally, I come to Amendment No. 13. Since the revised fluoridation provisions will be dependent on regulations made by the Secretary of State, I suggest that it needs to be a precondition of water companies being required to fluoridate water supplies that such regulations should first be made. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I support my noble friend, at least to some degree, but I should make it clear that my support for her amendments should not be taken to imply that I support the principle in the first instance. It is only fair to point out that, should Amendment No. 1 fail, all the other amendments that we are debating cannot be called. We are in something of a procedural dilemma.

Lord Tordoff: As I explained at the beginning, these are amendments to Amendment No. 1. Only when they have been dealt with will we return to Amendment No. 1, either amended or unamended.

Lord Dixon-Smith: That explanation is perfectly clear, but if one supports these amendments, it might be taken to mean that one supports Amendment No. 1 as amended. I would not want that implication to be made either. These amendments have real merit if the original proposition is accepted. Therefore, they should be supported. I am assuming that we will debate Amendment No. 1 as amended at the end, so I shall confine myself simply to the two issues in Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which are the ones that I want to support.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the Deputy Chairman of Committees say whether it is therefore in order for us to debate Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together? It seems to be getting very confused and messy.

Lord Tordoff: I must say that I am not confused. We are debating Amendment No. 2, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 1. That is a perfectly normal procedure in your Lordships' House. When that and the other amendments to Amendment No. 1 have been disposed of, we will have the opportunity to debate Amendment No. 1 as amended or as unamended. I have no doubt that your Lordships will find ways of referring to Amendment No. 1 while speaking to the other amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise if I have sown the seeds of confusion, as that was not my intention. I merely wanted to make plain precisely the ground on which I want to stand. I do not particularly want to refer to Amendment No. 2, but I want to refer to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which are grouped with Amendment No. 2.
	The question of technical guidance is absolutely fundamental. In moving her amendments, my noble friend said that the present technical guidance, such as it is, is now 15 years old. We know a good deal more than we did 15 years ago, and the technical guidance may anyway need to be different from that originally devised if we are in the business of supplying fluoridated water to specific areas that may be much smaller than the water undertakers' area. Therefore, there will need to be detailed guidance on that issue.
	The matter is not at all straightforward. We ought to appreciate that if fluoride is added to water for the benefit of a particular population, 99.5 per cent of that fluoride will return to the general water system. Fluoridated water will go into the system; consumers will use it in baths, lavatories and to clean their teeth and to drink. I assume that almost all that fluoride will go through the sewage works and straight into the water system—unless the Minister can give me an assurance that it can be precipitated out during the cleaning process. It will go on down the waterways.
	Let us take an example. If the towns of Oxford and Reading were to decide that they wanted to have fluoridated water and the town of London did not, the town of London would get fluoride in its water—perhaps not at the full concentration, but some anyway. That is one problem that we face. It may be that the downstream towns will receive a very low concentration, but the fluoride will be present unless it can be cleaned out. Perhaps the Minister could refer to that in his response. Because of those problems, the matter of technical guidance is absolutely essential and will need very careful consideration. My noble friend has done the House, and the passage of the Bill, a favour in tabling her amendment.
	Amendment No. 7 is simply a matter of what I would call good water management. In an emergency, water undertakers assist each other. If one happened to be supplying fluoridated water and another did not and there was an emergency breakdown that meant that one had to supply water to the other, it would be an impossible situation if one was not allowed to transfer to the other without having to worry about the possibility of law suits, indemnity and so on.
	I particularly support Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which do a great deal to help the matter forward. However, I make that plain without saying which way I wish to vote on the main principle, as we shall deal with that later.

Lord Warner: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate from the outset that we have a lot of sympathy with the broad objectives of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. We have some reservations, but our attitude is overwhelmingly sympathetic. It may be convenient for the House if I indicate our likely reaction.

Baroness Byford: I am most grateful to the Minister for making that statement. Before we leave the issue, we record our thanks for that. However, I want to ask about the position of licensed water suppliers. In the government amendment, they are deliberately left out of the loop. Will that be considered, or will the Government return to the more general practical negotiations?

Lord Warner: We are in sympathy with the broad objectives of Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 and Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. The water industry has for some years been pressing for a change in the law, as the noble Baroness said. We want to ensure that, within any constraints imposed by overall government policies, we meet the industry's concerns. We will aim to do that through the regulations enabled by the amendment and, if necessary, further amendments to the Bill, which could be made during the Bill's consideration in another place. We will consult the industry about the drafting of the regulations.
	Amendment No. 2 would provide for relevant authorities—the strategic health authorities—and the National Assembly for Wales to make arrangements to fluoridate with licensed water suppliers as well as water undertakers. We consider that it would be appropriate for the relevant authority to make arrangements with a water undertaker. Where licensed suppliers are required to fluoridate any water supplies as a result of the water undertaker's arrangements, such provisions could be specified within the access agreement between the water undertaker and the licensee to fluoridate its water. We shall review that assumption in conjunction with the water industry's representatives and, if any amendments are necessary, we shall introduce them in another place. I hope that, in the light of that reassurance, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
	With respect to Amendment No. 3, we recognise that water undertakers would find a standard contract reassuring, but there might be benefits in the flexibility that "may" offers over "shall". Although payment will naturally be one of the first things all arrangements will cover, there may be differences in the handling of such matters as the variations required to the arrangements. If the noble Baroness wishes, we shall consider that matter further with the water industry's representatives and, if any amendments are necessary, we shall introduce them in another place.
	With respect to Amendment No. 4, we envisage that those details would be included in the terms of the individual arrangements made between relevant health authorities and water undertakers. However, we recognise again that the water industry would find reassuring the inclusion of that detail in the Bill. We shall consider the matter further in conjunction with the water industry's representatives and, if any amendments are necessary, we shall introduce them in another place.
	With respect to Amendment No. 5, we agree that it is essential that the relevant authorities are clear about the boundaries of the water supply system before they embark on a public consultation. They need to know who to consult within the area for which they are responsible and, if the water system overlaps their boundaries, whether they need to involve neighbouring authorities in the consultation. We intend that that requirement will be specified in the regulations on consultation. However, we are prepared to look at this further in conjunction with the water industry's representatives and if any amendments are necessary we will introduce them in another place.
	With respect to Amendment No. 6, we recognise the importance that the industry attaches to observance of the technical code of practice. We are already working on a new, updated version of the code. However, the code contains guidance which may need to be updated in the light of technical developments. Prescribing that guidance in regulations could create delays in updating the code in future. However, we are happy to look again at this in discussion with the industry's representatives. Again, if any amendments are necessary we will introduce them in another place.
	With respect to Amendment No. 7, we accept the need to give water undertakers discretion to cope with unforeseen circumstances such as droughts, floods or plant breakdowns and these have been provided for in Section 87B. We have also extended the provisions in the existing Act, in Section 87(7)(b) and (c), which allow the circumstances in which the requirement for fluoridation may be temporarily suspended to be specified within the terms of the arrangements. Section 87(6) provides for local agreement of arrangements. I think that we would need a bit of persuading to go any further than that. I hope that in the light of the assurances that I have given so far the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
	With regard to Amendment No. 11, we recognise the importance of the indemnities to the water industry. We do not want a water company that makes an arrangement to fluoridate its water to incur any more liabilities than one that does not. However, I think it is agreed that we cannot indemnify the companies against liabilities incurred through negligence. That may mean that we may not be able to go as far as the amendment in indemnifying "any" liabilities. Again, that is something that we would like to discuss further with the industry's representatives and if any amendments are necessary we will introduce them in another place.
	We think that Amendment No. 12 is a further indication of the importance that the water industry attaches to the indemnities. My Amendment No. 1, to which I spoke earlier, uses,
	"may by regulations make provision",
	in order to leave open the option—however unlikely it may be—of our using another means of describing the detail of the indemnities that we wish to provide. There is absolutely no question of our expecting water companies to fluoridate without indemnities, but we will look at this further in conjunction with the industry's representatives. Again, if any amendments were necessary we would introduce them in another place.
	On Amendment No. 13, as I indicated, there is no question of our expecting water companies to fluoridate without indemnities or before we have made the regulations on consultation. However, I appreciate the cause of the water industry's concern. We will look at this further in conjunction with the industry's representatives. Again, if any amendments are necessary, we will introduce them. I hope that, in the light of those firm assurances, the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness O'Cathain: What is the date today? It is 9th July. One would think that it is my birthday, but it is not. I want to say thank you very much indeed to the Government and particularly to the Minister for listening to the arguments. From reading his brief, my guess is that he already knew the sort of arguments that I was going to put forward. He matched them ball for ball. I love the new expression that he used and hope that it gains further credence in the House—"We shall look at this further with the representatives of X or Y industry, or of the schools, or of the health service, and then present further amendments". It is very gracious of the Government to do that. However, I should like to make a couple of points. I have also been told not to seek leave to withdraw my amendment until my noble friends have had an opportunity to express their views on it.
	I am afraid that the Minister did not listen to my opening comments when I gave my reasons for tabling the amendments. I said that companies would expect to be indemnified,
	"other than in respect of their own negligence".
	That is a sine qua non; there is no question about it. No one should ever be allowed off that hook. If people are negligent they will just have to carry the can.
	I noticed that the Minister needs a bit of persuading on Amendment No. 7. I think that I will need a bit of persuading to withdraw it. I shall see whether I have been persuaded in the course of the next debate. At this point, I believe that other noble Lords wish to speak to the amendments.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am pleased that the Minister made those comments; they are at least a starting point. However, I should like to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, particularly his worry that too much fluoride will accumulate in the water. I believe that it is very important for him to appreciate that there is absolute control over water fluoridation in every area where it has been introduced. The level is never allowed to rise above one part per million. I cannot see why there would be any change to that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I seek to assist the Committee. My understanding is that if the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, were to withdraw her amendment, we would then deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. After that we would be able to consider the Minister's Amendment No. 1. I do not believe that noble Lords wish to have a debate on the principle and issue of fluoridation three times.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am not speaking about the general issue. However, I think I should say now—while we are speaking to Amendment No. 2, and after the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke specifically to the point—that it is a misconception to believe that fluoride levels in the Thames will continually build up. Although that is only one of many minor points, I think it relevant to what has been said in relation to this group of amendments. It is important to realise that in all the years that fluoride has been in water, the maximum level has always been set at one part per million. There has been no change to that. So although the noble Lord says that we need to update all the arrangements, research has not demonstrated the need for change.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I think that I should be allowed to attempt to clear up the confusion that I appear again to have caused. I did not mention one part per million, and I certainly did not wish to imply that one might ever find oneself with water with more than one part per million of introduced fluoride. I should add that there are some natural water sources in which the level is considerably higher than that.
	That said, my concern was slightly different. My concern was that upstream communities could vote to introduce fluoride and downstream communities would have fluoride in their water whether they voted for it or not. It may well be at much reduced concentrations, but the fact is that it would be there. That could be avoided if the fluoride—the Minister was not debating the principle, so he probably did not want to address this issue—was removed during the water cleaning process which such water would undergo before being returned to the watercourse. It is an issue, but it is nothing to do with the one part per million.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is everything to do with the one part per million. I cannot accept that.

The Countess of Mar: I think that at the moment we are debating the technical amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. We have time to debate the one part per million or the 10 parts per million or whatever it is when we debate the Minister's main amendment, Amendment No. 1. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will kindly respect that.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: At the moment we are debating the second grouping of amendments. Is that not correct? We are debating Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13. That is what is before us at the moment. Therefore, I do not understand the point made by the noble Baroness. This is Committee stage. We could debate the matter backwards and forwards all night if we so wished. I do not so wish, but the point which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith reiterated about fluoride build-up makes one imagine that we are taking water straight out of the river and drinking it. All drinking water is treated before it reaches the consumer. Where I live in Oxfordshire the chlorine content of the water is so strong that I have to fill the kettle and leave it to stand over night or I could not drink the tea made with that water. There is no doubt that water is treated before it reaches the consumer.

Baroness O'Cathain: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 8:
	Line 146, after "below," insert "the Secretary of State shall ensure sufficient funding is available for a meaningful consultation to take place, and"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, exemplifies why the public may wish to become involved in any consultation on whether to fluoridate water.
	Were the amendments that I have tabled to be accepted, I would not have any problem with the Government's Amendment No. 1. Were they not to be accepted, I would have a problem with Amendment No. 1, which is a technical amendment to which we shall return later. Consultation with the public is absolutely key to the matter. The government amendment has been tabled at a very late stage which precludes much discussion on it. We shall have to cram it all into a couple of hours this afternoon.
	I have grave misgivings about the drafting of Amendment No. 1, notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about public consultation. I say, "Lucky Wales" with its elected Assembly with which the relevant decision will rest. However, in England the strategic health authorities are not well placed to undertake any kind of public consultation. It is not part of their main job; they are not experienced in it and the public are not used to strategic health authorities undertaking public consultation. In contrast, elected local authorities undertake public consultation all the time. They have experience of dealing with very difficult issues such as local planning issues when dealing with local plans. They are ideally placed to undertake public consultation. If the public in a particular area are not happy with the way in which a local authority conducts itself, they can vote it out of office. That does not apply to a strategic health authority, which is appointed by a Minister.
	Strategic health authorities have a vested interest in slanting public consultation—I am not saying that they would—in one direction. Of course, strategic health authorities believe that fluoridation is a good thing. The many letters that I have received on the subject from the medical establishment suggest that that feeling is widespread. I do not want to challenge that, but I believe that the public have a fundamental right to do so for the following reasons. Water fluoridation is a step in a different direction where informed consent for medication is no longer required; it just arrives through one's tap whether one likes it or not. One cannot opt out of it. That is a fundamental change.
	I have no doubt that if strategic health authorities had the funds and the time, they would approach the issue of children's tooth decay from a different angle. We have heard that often children's teeth are in a worse state in areas of greater deprivation. I believe that, if strategic health authorities had sufficient funds and time, they would devote more attention to the diet of pregnant mothers, the promotion of breastfeeding, suitable diets for babies and young children and doing something about vending machines in schools and the consumption of fizzy drinks and sweets. I accept that those are all long-term issues. However, once fluoridation is introduced, the incentive for strategic health authorities to do something about those other issues, which result in many other health problems, is much reduced as one of the obvious factors resulting from a bad diet has been removed, and the expense that goes with that for the relevant strategic health authority.
	My amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State,
	"shall ensure sufficient funding is available for a meaningful consultation to take place".
	It is far from clear to me who will pay for it. As we know, health authorities are strapped for cash as it is. Will they spend an awful lot of money on consultation, the answer to which they are already convinced should be yes? I do not believe that they will do so unless the Secretary of State ensures that that is done.
	Nothing in the Bill suggests how public opinion would be measured at the end of such a consultation process. The GM debate reveals that the Government do not know how outcomes of consultation should be measured. I do not believe that they have produced a formula. The Minister will tell me that it is for the independent steering group to do that. He will also say that it is for strategic health authorities to determine how to measure public opinion. But I consider that we need to state on the face of the Bill that public opinion is clearly in favour of the change that we are discussing; otherwise, the matter is unclear and strategic health authorities can go ahead and public consultation will count for nothing. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It might be convenient for me to say at this stage what I would have said on the original new clause. I believe that we are in a state of confusion about that. I should have preferred that this very important matter involving compulsory medication was dealt with in a Bill rather than a new clause to a Bill which is reaching the end of its passage through this House. Then we could have had a proper Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading. That was the proper way for this measure to have been introduced. It is much more important than people realise.
	In the speech that I would have made, had we been having a Second Reading, I was going to raise the question of consultation. I would have asked a number of questions. What sort of consultation is it going to be? Are there, for example, going to be local referendums? If so, who will arrange them? By whom will they be conducted? Will they be conducted under the auspices of the Electoral Commission and, if not, how is strict fairness to be achieved? As the noble Baroness pointed out, in any consultation procedures we need to be sure that fairness is achieved. What facilities will be given to opponents of fluoridation to state their case? Will equal amounts of public funds be made available to them as to the supporters of fluoridation? Will health authorities be under a restriction as to the use of taxpayers' money to promote fluoridation when opponents may not have such access to public funds? Indeed, if there are to be referendums, how will voting be conducted and, as I say, by whom? Those are important questions. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to answer them now or at a later stage, but I hope that he will be able either to satisfy the noble Baroness as to her amendments, or, if not, that they will be put to a vote. It is extremely important, indeed essential, that if debate is to be carried out it is done on a proper basis—a basis that people can understand and in which they feel able to take part in.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I support the previous speakers on the points they made and the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. It is important that this should be decided by the elected local authorities. As the noble Baroness said, it is more than a simple matter of fluoridation and healthcare. Tessa Jowell, as Minister for Public Health some years ago, was sympathetic. The thinking then was that it should not be the responsibility of health authorities, with the endemic pro-fluoridation culture which is hard to get away from, but the elected local authorities. I hope that the Minister takes the point seriously.
	It is important to involve all shades of opinion in any consultation process. We had a very good principle on the York systematic review in which I took part. There was an advisory panel overseeing the whole process, drawn explicitly from supporters and opponents of fluoridation. That meant that both sides of the argument could be put. Any bias was spotted and corrected as we went along, and neither side was at a disadvantage at any stage of the process. I have reason to believe, having been in correspondence with him, that the Chief Medical Officer may be sympathetic to the view that it is important to include all shades of opinion in the consultation process, both in terms of putting forward their points of view and in drawing up the necessary questions and agenda, which are too readily set by the pro-fluoridation people.
	I had intended to say later, and shall say now, that in an area which, in the words of one mainstream journal,
	"has probably brought out as much extremism as any other issue in the modern history of science"—
	on both sides—and where,
	"hardly any individual interested in the issue . . . can be classified as neutral",
	even-handedness is crucial at every stage. I hope that the noble Lord will give the matter serious consideration.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I begin by declaring an interest as a former member of the British Fluoridation Society and an active supporter of its work. I am also an adviser to the Birmingham and the Black Country Health Authority.
	Perhaps I may respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. She strayed into issues in relation to the principle behind the debate. I regret that we have not been able to have a debate on the principle before coming to the detailed amendment. I do not think that this has been a very sensible approach. We find ourselves extremely frustrated in talking about the nitty-gritty of consultation without coming to a view on the whole issue of fluoridation. It is not a very sensible way to proceed.
	Perhaps I may respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about strategic health authorities. She said that they should concentrate on breast-feeding and diet and other ways to improve oral health in contrast or in substitution for fluoridating the water. She went on to say that areas where water is to be, or has been, fluoridated might not take other action to improve oral health.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think he will accept, if he looks at the record, that I said that those would be the long-term issues but that fluoridating water might not encourage a strategic health authority to take energetic steps in that direction.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification. But if we take the City of Birmingham authority, which fluoridated the water about 40 years ago, we see that the public health dentistry programme in that city and in the Black Country is probably one of the most progressive in the country as a whole. The fact that it has taken a proactive role in promoting fluoridation indicates that it is dedicated to the dental health of children. Not only does Birmingham have the advantage of fluoridation; we also have very strong dentistry provision and a very strong public health dentistry service. I do not accept the argument advanced by the noble Baroness.
	On the issue of consultation, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are right to stress that consultation is very important. But we have heard from my noble friend that affirmative regulations will be laid as regards the detail of that consultation.
	As to the question of whether local authorities or the NHS should be responsible for consultation, the NHS is the public health authority in this country. If local government had a broad responsibility for public health, I could understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. But it is the health service that has responsibility for promoting and improving the general health of the population locally. Surely it follows that it should be the National Health Service itself which conducts that public consultation.
	It is not as though the NHS is without experience in conducting consultation. It does so time and again on the major reconfiguration of services and on restructuring. It has a long history of consultation. It is subject to judicial review if it gets it wrong. I really do not think it would help if, on this important public health measure, we suddenly said that we do not have faith in the NHS to conduct public consultation properly and that we should hand it over to local government. I believe that in this area we should trust the NHS to do a proper job.

Lord Chan: I support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I declare an interest as honorary president of the north-west centre of the UK Public Health Association, and your Lordships know my association with the NHS.
	The areas that I know best, in the north-west of England, are the very areas that are not fluoridated and where there is without doubt concern, particularly in regard to child health and child dental health. These issues have not been improved by dietary interventions or even through interventions in terms of better maternal health. Therefore, one looks at long-standing issues such as the high expense to the National Health Service of children with dental decay. Those who are under five need a general anaesthetic before they can have teeth taken out. In Manchester, 1,500 such operations are carried out every year, and there is a waiting list of about 500. At the Liverpool dental hospital, the figure for general anaesthetics for children under five is 1,300. The cost is enormous. We could be doing many more operations or carrying out much better interventions if we did not have this expense.

Baroness Andrews: We are dealing with a specific amendment in this instance. The three amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are specific to questions of funding and public consultation. I suspect that the noble Lord is making his speech in response to Amendment No. 1 and the general debate on the principle of fluoridation.

Lord Chan: I beg the pardon of the House. I was coming to consultation. Patients' forums, and the neighbourhood forums that we have set up in the North West function as a useful way of consulting people. There is no doubt that that is a helpful approach. There are also forums looking specifically at sections of the population such as ethnic minority families where the incidence of dental decay is high—particularly among Chinese children.

Lord Fowler: I shall seek to deal with the amendment on public consultation. Part of the confusion on this amendment arises because it is not an amendment to the Bill but, clearly, that is what it should be. I say that with the assurance of someone who, in 1985, introduced the Water (Fluoridation) Bill. I and my Minister for Health at the time, Ken Clarke, took it through all its stages. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was one of the opponents of that legislation. He signals that he was. I thought that I had remembered correctly—I still have the scars. I believe that possibly a record was reached on the length of speeches made then.
	It is a little difficult to deal with the issue of public consultation before we have dealt with the principle of what we are doing, and therefore I believe that the whole Committee is in some difficulty on that. Although I understand what has happened, frankly I consider it to be a curious way to get the legislation through. I am not at all sure that it will prove to be the best way because one reason we are dealing with this legislation is that we say that the old legislation did not work. But we shall see.
	I agree emphatically with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the issue of public consultation. We are both Birmingham Members, or part of the Birmingham Mafia, so perhaps that is not totally surprising. However, I am not at all sure that I want local authorities—certainly some of the local authorities that I lived under—to organise the public consultation on this matter. We are dealing with health authorities. They are the public health authorities. They have the expertise; they are aware of the arguments; they are able to give the facts; and, above all, they are able to give the advice. People look to health authorities for that expertise and advice.
	I should much prefer the public consultation to be organised by public health authorities and not by local authorities. Local authorities have quite enough to do. Personally, I am fairly sceptical as to whether they do it fantastically well, and I certainly do not want to place another extraneous job and duty upon them. I believe that that is what health authorities are there to do and I back the Bill so far as concerns that matter.

The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her first amendment—Amendment No. 8. Perhaps the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Newton—I am sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—will not mind my saying that, along with that of the Birmingham Mafia, my water has also been fluoridated for 40 years. I live in Worcestershire and am in the Severn Trent area. I totally oppose fluoridation, but I shall come to that issue later.
	If we are to have fluoridation, we need to have informed consent. In order to inform people properly, the necessary funding must be available. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made clear the provisions that are required and I heartily endorse what he said. Like other noble Lords, I am sorry that this amendment has been tabled in this way and that our debate on it is so truncated. It is a very bad way to proceed, especially when the Minister and all his advisers know what a contentious subject this is.

Lord Monson: Although I oppose Amendment No. 1 for reasons that I shall come to before very long, I believe that these Liberal Democrat amendments will make a bad amendment slightly less bad. I still doubt that a majority has any moral right to compel a minority to ingest a contentious compound through its drinking water. But at least the amendments would ensure that fluoridation was not being imposed against the will of that majority. Frankly, I do not trust the NHS to do a proper job of reflecting public opinion.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I strongly support the idea of the National Health Service carrying out the consultation, and I strongly oppose Amendment No. 9, which suggests that local authorities should do it. Many points have been raised, but one that has not been made is that this issue would become a manifesto commitment for local authorities. We could end up with fluoride being put in and taken out of water time and again, and the situation would be hopeless for both the local authorities and the public.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may add a small word on this matter, and I apologise for delaying the Committee further. The issue is not how one consults the public. It is very easy to bombard the public with information and it is equally easy to bombard them with disinformation, if I may say so. The real issue is how one determines the view of the public. I believe that that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
	I want to say only that probably the biggest public consultation of all—I believe I can say this in this House where we are not elected—is a general election. From observation over many years, I believe we would all say that general elections occasionally throw up the most extraordinary results. But at least it is a public determination and one knows exactly the view of the public. It may be extraordinary but one knows their view. If that type of process does not take place, there will always be an element of doubt.

Earl Howe: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a detailed question on her Amendment No. 9. Does she envisage that a local authority would have the discretion to decline a request made to it by a strategic health authority? It seems to me that that is the way the amendment reads. The request can be made but there is nothing in the amendment to say that the local authority must comply with the request.

Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness responds, perhaps I may add one or two questions. I agree with all noble Lords who have said that we have got into an awful mess by dealing with the issue in this manner. However, I have a specific question about Amendment No. 10, which seeks to insert the words,
	"if public opinion is clearly in favour of such an addition".
	Is the noble Baroness referring to a majority of the public—that is, more than 50 per cent—or does she have in mind a particular way of judging public opinion? Does she envisage that a target must be reached before public opinion cuts in? That is a matter to which I shall refer later.
	I support the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 8 because I believe that whoever undertakes the consultation—whether it is a health authority, a local authority or whoever—will definitely need to have sufficient funding. Perhaps I may also ask the noble Baroness the Minister—indeed, I shall ask the noble Lord when we speak to Amendment No. 1—whether the Government have considered having a referendum, involving one person/one vote. How far will this matter go? If it is of help to noble Lords, my local newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, has run a nightly article throughout this week. According to the responses that it has received from its readers, 94 out of 100 are opposed to the inclusion of fluoride in water. Therefore, one should not assume that everyone supports fluoridation.
	I shall give other figures later when we discuss the detail of this issue. However, I want to know at what level the consultation will cut in, what percentage will be involved and whether the exercise will obtain just a general view, as the noble Baroness inferred during the GM debate. If it is to be based on the GM issue, then I should be very anxious on my own account.

Lord Dixon: I support the noble Baroness's amendment because the health authority would already have made up its mind. It would promote the question. At least the local authority would be impartial. A local authority is also democratically elected and the people know who they are dealing with. My experience of health authorities is that, when they hold consultations, they usually do so at a time of day when people cannot be present and, invariably, no one turns up for the consultation. Therefore, I am opposed to fluoridation and I hope to speak to Amendment No. 1. But certainly I believe that this amendment would improve that amendment a little if it were eventually agreed to.

Lord Warner: I hope that I shall be able to clarify some of the issues for noble Lords on some of these amendments. With regard to Amendment No. 8—the money item—I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern to see that consultations are adequately funded. However, I believe that she may accept that it would be contrary to the general policy on funding in the NHS to try to ring-fence elements of an SHA's budget. Certainly the Government are committed to shifting the balance of power in the NHS downwards to SHAs and PCTs. We feel that they must be free to determine their own spending priorities.
	Indeed, this provision in relation to fluoridation concerns local choice and local priorities. Nevertheless, in the regulations we shall set down the procedures that the SHA has to follow in undertaking consultation. As I said earlier—I do not wish to detain the Committee by going through what I said in the earlier part of my remarks on Amendment No. 1—the regulations will deal with the dissemination of the proposals to fluoridate. We will use the press, radio, TV and leaflet drops. There will be consultation involving public meetings, discussions on local TV and radio, help lines, websites, and there will be an objective means of measuring the public opinion which could have a basket of indicators. I shall say a little more on that. I do not believe, in the context of the regulations, that there is any chance of strategic health authorities doing that in a hole-in-the-corner manner.
	While I recognise the pressures on funding in the NHS, dare I remind noble Lords that over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08 expenditure on the NHS will increase on average by 7.4 per cent a year over and above inflation. That is a total increase over the period of 43 per cent in real terms. By 2007–08 we shall be allocating £84 billion to the NHS and near £2 billion of that sum will be spent on dentistry. So strategic health authorities with high levels of dental decay in their population are likely to be attracted by long-term savings in dental treatment offered by fluoridation. There are some incentives for them to find the money for the consultation processes.
	On Amendment No. 9, we certainly want local authorities to play a full part in the consultation, but essentially this is a public health matter, as many noble Lords have said. We believe that the matter has to be owned by the health service. That is not to under-estimate the contributions that local authorities are capable of making at all stages of the consultation process. It would be surprising if something like this consultation was taking place in a particular local authority area and it stayed shtoom and did not involve itself in the process of consultation at all. As I have said, in the regulations we shall give the details of how they could help publicise the proposals, organise public meetings and help with the measurement of public opinion. There would be nothing to stop local authorities being fully engaged in that process.
	We intend that the regulations on consultation will require strategic health authorities to seek the views of the local authority. That will ensure that local authorities in effect have a statutory role in the consultation process. I hope that in the light of that assurance, and the kind of assurances that I have given, the—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have listened closely to what the Minister has said, but I cannot be assured by him saying that the regulations will include proper methods of consulting the general public. Nothing in his speech tells the Committee that all the information will be impartial and that there will be opportunities for opponents to put their point of view with the aid of public money and public facilities. He has not answered my questions as to whether there will be referendums and, if not, why not, and if there are to be referendums who will supervise them. A whole range of questions need to be answered. If they cannot be answered at this stage, I sincerely hope that they will be answered when the Bill goes to the other place. Otherwise, the whole business will be entirely unsatisfactory and the public will be completely and utterly conned by the consultation process.

Lord Warner: I believe that if the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I spelt out in some detail what kind of territory will be covered in the regulations. He may recall—perhaps he missed this point in my opening remarks—that I said that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So there will be plenty of time for the noble Lord to put his points on this issue when the regulations are produced—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I have heard exactly what he said, and I am pleased that the regulations will come forward by affirmative resolution. But he must know that even if there is an affirmative resolution, it cannot be amended by either House. Therefore, the regulations will be put before us for acceptance or rejection, but not for amendment. I am trying to ensure that the Government are aware that there are strong feelings about what the regulations should contain and that the public should be properly and fairly consulted before any decision is taken.

Lord Warner: I am not sure what more I can say to reassure the noble Lord on the processes to be carried out in this area. I am not sure that I do much service to the Committee by continuing along this path.
	Perhaps I may move to Amendment No. 10. Our reaction to the amendment is that we have much sympathy with the intention behind it, that no strategic health authority will be permitted to fluoridate, unless the local community is in favour. That will be central to the regulations that I said we shall draw up on consultation and assessing public opinion under Section 89.
	On the obvious concerns of the noble Baroness, we shall also consider whether the need for an SHA to show that the population is in favour should be included on the face of the Bill. We recognise the importance of the methods used in assessing public opinion. I have tried to emphasise that. As I said earlier, we shall consult widely on this matter, on the best basis of carrying out the consultation and on the best way to measure public opinion. We can use issues like well structured public opinion surveys; we can talk to the Electoral Reform Society, the Local Government Association and the professional bodies concerned with public health and dentistry. We are resolved to combat social exclusion by means of reaching people who do not normally contribute to opinion surveys.
	It is worth bearing in mind again that the people who are suffering from dental decay most severely are people in lower socio-economic groups. In the public consultation and public determination process, we need to work towards a kind of basket of indicators that is likely to provide us with a good picture of people's opinions across the socio-economic groups. I emphasise again that we shall use leaflet drops, telephone help lines, and all the wonders of information technology to help us to tap in to people's opinions. I hope that in the light of that the noble Baroness will be willing to reconsider moving her amendment.

The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could say that he has not addressed the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Opinions are formed by opinion formers. We have all been bombarded by letters from a huge number of health authorities and the Minister said that he had not heard any opposition to fluoridation. I have. Perhaps people think that I may be more receptive to some opposition. We have to hear both sides of the story. If the health service is promoting its attitude to fluoridation, the other side must be funded to promote its side, so that people can have an even view of the matter on which to make up their minds. Will the Minister kindly address that point?

Lord Warner: I am drawing a deep breath. I have already said that there will be public funding through the statutory health authorities for the process of consultation. We have said at length what those processes will be. There will be plenty of opportunity for those who oppose the idea of fluoridating water in a particular area to have their full say in the process. I would be very surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his area, remained silent while such a process was taking place there.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may take the noble Lord back to the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. If I recall correctly, the Minister said that £2 billion—anyway a large sum—was allocated to the health authorities. That does not mean that money is available to those who might want to put a contrary view. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is trying to make sure that sufficient funding is available so that those with different views can make their cases heard.
	Although I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, he has not satisfied me as an individual that the money allocated to the health authorities would be distributed to groups with contrary views. That is where the dilemma lies.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The reason why the noble Lord has only heard from one side in this argument is purely a matter of funding.

Baroness O'Cathain: Surely the £2 billion is not actually for the consultation, but is solely for dentistry. Suddenly that figure gets around and is in the same discussion about consultation, so please let us get that off the record.

Lord Warner: Let me put the matter beyond doubt: there will not be £2 billion for public consultation. I was saying that by the time we get to 2007–08, something like £2 billion a year will be being spent on dentistry. So those strategic health authorities in which there are high levels of dental decay will have a vested interest in ensuring that there is a proper public debate about this particular issue.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am agnostic about fluoridation of water; I am simply concerned with these amendments to ensure that the non-agnostic public, who probably will not take a strong part in the matter, have a proper opportunity to put their views.
	I believe that the Government can understand—and have said so on occasions, although I cannot quote when—that a body should not be judge and jury of an issue. If a health authority is a strong promoter of adding fluoride to water, it certainly is not the body to carry out the consultation.
	Secondly, I appreciate the noble Earl—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the noble Baroness adopts that principle, one would reach a situation in which the strategic health authority would not take any decisions at all because she would say that it could not take an objective view. The strategic health authority and the primary care trust are the public health authorities in this country. It is their job to take decisions.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The difference is that informed consent to medical treatment has until now always been the norm. The move away from that makes this a sensitive and different issue and the reason why another body or bodies should conduct the consultation.
	I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for pointing out that in Amendment No. 9 it might have been better to use the words "may instruct". I guess that it was my natural liberal tendencies that made me use the word "request" because it sounded more polite. I accept his point that that wording would be stronger.
	I cannot better the arguments of those noble Lords who have said that Amendment No. 1 would be a much better amendment were these amendments to be on the face of the Bill. I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. It may well be that all the points he makes are in regulations. However, that certainly does not get around the judge and jury point. I believe that when we feel something strongly, it should be on the face of the Bill. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 154.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 9:
	Line 147, at end insert "request the elected local authorities within its area to"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I intend to move Amendment No. 9, because I should like to think further about the helpful suggestion from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that local authorities may be instructed within the area. I shall bring back the amendment on Report. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. Does the noble Baroness wish to seek leave to withdraw it?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thought that I had to move it before I withdrew it.

Lord Boston of Faversham: I would not wish to intrude on the work of the Committee by in any way embracing the role of a Speaker, but in fact the noble Baroness had two options: one would have been not to move the amendment; the other, which she has quite properly chosen, is to have moved it, in which case she is quite right—in those circumstances, leave to withdraw needs to be sought.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Given that I shall bring back the amendment on Report and give the Minister time to consider it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Boston of Faversham: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Boston of Faversham: I hear voices; I think on my right. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords: No.

Lord Boston of Faversham: The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
	Amendment negatived.

[Amendment Nos. 10 to 13, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]

Lord Boston of Faversham: The Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

The Countess of Mar: As might be anticipated by those who know me, I rise to oppose the amendment. As I said earlier, I have lived in the Severn Trent river authority catchment area since before it started to fluoridate the water supply 40 years ago. My daughter, born 40 years ago, has no dental caries, but my granddaughter, who has never lived in an area where the water supply was fluoridated, has dental fluorosis. Her teeth are affected. I wonder what has happened to her bones and other organs.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Would noble Lords please allow noble Lords who are speaking to be heard?

The Countess of Mar: I very much appreciate what the noble Baroness has said.
	I am not unsympathetic to the plight of children who have dental caries. For five years during the mid-1960s, I worked in the casualty department of my local hospital. Seeing tiny children whose milk teeth had not yet all erupted coming in for total dental clearances was not a pleasant experience. Their screams of terror before the anaesthetic took effect still haunt me. The sight of a mouthful of blackened stumps where there should be shiny white teeth was awful. However, I am not satisfied that mass medication as proposed by the Minister is the right answer.
	We have been told that fluoride occurs naturally in some water supplies, and it does. It occurs as a relatively insoluble calcium fluoride. I understand that in most water supplies it occurs at levels of about 0.01 to 0.03 parts per million. At slightly higher levels, it is toxic. For example, in India, where levels of between 0.7 and 13 parts per million occur, large numbers of the population are crippled by skeletal fluorosis by the time they are 40.
	The amendment authorises health authorities to request water authorities to put into our water supplies hexafluorosilicic acid, or disodium hexafluorosilicate. That chemical is a waste product of the fertiliser industry. Its environmental toxicity was first recognised in the early 1950s in the US. In Florida, the creation of multiple phosphate plants in the 1940s caused damage to vineyards and citrus groves. A former president of Polk County Cattlemen's Association said:
	"Around 1953 we noticed a change in our cattle . . . We watched our cattle become gaunt and starved; their legs became deformed; they lost their teeth; reproduction fell off; and when a cow had a calf, it was affected by this malady or was stillborn".
	The following report appeared in a 1969 article in Good Housekeeping:
	"The blight had affected cattle too. Some lay in the pasture, barely able to move. Others limped and staggered on swollen legs, or painfully sank down and tried to graze on their knees . . . Ingested day after day, the excessive fluoride had caused tooth and bone disease in cattle, so that they could not tolerate the anguish of standing or walking. Even eating and drinking was an agony. Their ultimate fate was dehydration, starvation and death".
	Environmental damage is known to occur at exposures of as low as one part per billion. Here we are talking about putting one part per million in our water supplies. Eventually, environmental legislation forced the agrochemical industries to put scrubbers in their chimneys to strip particulate and recovered compounds from waste gas. Every time I think of scrubbers, I think of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, when I asked her a question many years ago.

Baroness Trumpington: Thank you very much!

The Countess of Mar: The recovered compounds include hexafluorosilicic acid and disodium hexafluorosilicate, which are very toxic compounds.
	As recently as 2000, Dr J William Hirzy, senior vice-president of the US Environmental Protection Agency, said of these chemicals:
	"If this stuff gets into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into a lake, it's a pollutant; but if it gets into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing. There's got to be a better way to manage this stuff".
	Are we content to be the sink for a waste product of the chemical industry? The safety data sheet for hexafluorosilicic acid, produced by Rhone Poulenc of Ghent, states:
	"Do not let this chemical enter the environment . . . Dispose of this product as a hazardous waste. Consult the supplier to see if he will take it back. [It] causes burns. Hazardous reactions may occur on contact with many chemicals".
	These compounds are listed as poisons in the Poisons Act 1972.
	In 1995, a spokesperson for the Department of the Environment wrote:
	"There would appear to be no standard for the discharge of fluoride to the environment . . . but it is regarded as a dangerous substance under the EC Dangerous Substances Directive and as such pollution must be reduced . . . Research is to be carried out to define acceptable limits for fluoride [for discharge to sewer and in treatment processes] in the future, but when such work would be complete and published is indeterminable".
	Dental fluorosis is believed to affect an average of 48 per cent of children in fluoridated areas. I believe that that also applies to Birmingham. Since the beginning of the 20th century, fluorosis has been observed in patients suffering hypothyroidism. Do we imagine that the fluoridated water that we ingest leaves its fluoride on our teeth and has no further effect on other parts of our anatomies? About half the fluoride we ingest is accumulated in our bones. They may at one stage get stronger, but then they become brittle. No long-term research has ever been conducted into the systemic effects of long-term exposure to compounds of fluorine. Certainly there has been no attempt by our National Health Service to establish the levels of fluoride in the bodies of people who have lived for many years in fluoridated areas.
	As well as being concerned about the effects of long-term exposure of the human population to fluorides, I am concerned about the ethics of mass medication. I am concerned about the effects of watering farm livestock—a milking cow drinks 30 gallons of water per day—with medicated water. I am concerned about the effects of pouring billions of gallons of water into our sewers and watercourses daily, with the resultant contamination of the environment.
	We know that we are talking about a very toxic chemical. One part per million sounds a very small amount. However, we must take into account the fact that many people will use toothpaste with added fluorides, that many foods and drugs contain such compounds, and that for those who live in industrial areas, manufacturing processes may result in airborne pollution. Some may be exposed to quantities much higher than would be considered safe for the taking of drugs, which are subject to rigorous tests under clinical conditions. All safety studies on fluoride to date have been conducted using pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade silicofluorides.
	I could say much more on this matter, but I will not. I rest my case.

Lord Fowler: The noble Countess is not making too many friends on this side of the House today. My noble friend Lady Trumpington—

Baroness Trumpington: I can speak for myself.

Lord Fowler: Having served with my noble friend for two or three years, I know perfectly well that she can speak for herself, and she most certainly will. The noble Countess confused me with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I would like to tell the Countess of Margate that I in no way regard that as an insult—

The Countess of Mar: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I apologise profoundly for mistaking his name. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, remembers a question about dioxin, which she answered when she was on the Front Bench on this side, and that she made a big joke when I asked her about scrubbers in chimneys.

Lord Fowler: I really will allow my noble friend to reply to that. I am afraid that the joke is entirely beyond me, and I suspect beyond my noble friend as well.
	I intervene to return for a few minutes to the question of fluoridation because I have a slight feeling that we have been here before. In 1985 we introduced the Water Fluoridation Bill, which my noble friend handled so ably in the House of Lords—

Baroness Trumpington: Hear, hear!

Lord Fowler: I would like that to be put on record as well. I should perhaps have done it earlier. My noble friend will remember that that Bill was very fiercely debated, and I know that some opponents of it are still in the House.
	We should perhaps recall why we introduced that Bill. It came directly from the judgment of Lord Jauncey in the Strathclyde case, which ruled that in Scotland fluoridation was ultra vires. The judgment did not challenge the safety of fluoridation, but rather the power of authorities to be able to use it. As a result, fluoridation in Scotland was ended. It also cast doubt on the position elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We sought to clarify the matter and effectively revert to the position as we had always thought it to be. We gave health authorities the power and responsibility to propose fluoridation in their own areas because we felt, and I still feel—the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on a previous amendment—that they were the most competent bodies to determine local health needs. It seems to me that that is what health authorities are about. Because some water authorities have challenged that, we are in the position we face today.
	The Minister was fairly kind about the attitude of the water companies. My noble friend put their case in the most sympathetic way possible. I wonder whether, with a little more courage, the water authorities might not have been able to do more than they did. Irrespective of where fault lies, I am sure that the Government are now right to put the issue beyond all possible doubt.
	The arguments on fluoridation are not remotely new. It was first proposed in the 1930s and introduced in North America in 1945. Two arguments have been made against it. The first is that it challenges the freedom of the individual. There is no doubt that, if fluoridation is carried out in a particular area, there is no choice about the water you drink. The same arguments of liberty were put on issues such as seat belts and crash helmets. There is a balance, and it is for everyone to make up their own mind. In my view, the good to be done outweighs any argument of individual liberty. That is the case here.
	The second argument relates to whether fluoridation does good and whether there is any danger in it. On the issue of safety, I do not intend to go into all the arguments. As in the 1980s, I am entirely persuaded by the evidence and views of the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Dental Officer and the British Dental Association. That is where I stand.
	On the good that fluoridation does, perhaps I may refer to the West Midlands where I had a constituency for almost 30 years. The evidence from there seems overwhelming. As in so many other matters, Birmingham leads the country in this respect—at least I have the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on my side on that issue. Like all Members of the Committee, I have received a number of representations. One letter from the West Midlands was from Dr Nigel Carter, the chief executive of the British Dental Health Foundation. He says that, from his personal experience, having practised on the borders of fluoridated Birmingham and the then non-fluoridated Sandwell at the end of the 1970s, it was possible to tell whether children were from a fluoridated or non-fluoridated area just by the condition of their mouth. While children from Birmingham were virtually decay-free, those from Sandwell often had multiple cavities and suffered many extractions. Dr Carter says that he is pleased to say that, following fluoridation of Sandwell's water in 1987, children in the area have moved from near the bottom of the dental health league to the top 10. That is significant evidence.
	Strangely, that evidence was confirmed by the leader of Sandwell Borough Council, who pointed out that Sandwell has some of the most deprived wards in Europe where one would expect children's dental health to be correspondingly poor. Yet, after fluoridation, Sandwell ranks among the best. Again, John Charlton, the chairman of University Hospital Birmingham, says that water supplies in Birmingham have been fluoridated for almost 40 years and, as a result, dental health in Birmingham is among the best in the country. The letters go on and on.
	My favourite letter is from one of my oldest political opponents in Birmingham, Sir Richard Knowles—Dick Knowles—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know. He says that the ability of the upper House to straighten out legislation has been the main reason why, in a lifetime of politics, he supports a bicameral system. I hope that the Government Whips are listening to that support for our system. He says that 86 years ago he was born on a farm where natural fluoride existed in the local water, which is one of the reasons that his own teeth are so good. According to Sir Richard Knowles, the teeth of children in Birmingham are in better fettle than anywhere else in our country.
	With that evidence of success, it seems that the challenge is to go further. Surely, dental decay is a disease that is largely preventable. But, despite substantial improvements in dental health over the past 30 years, there remain many areas of England where there are considerable numbers of children with the disease, which can cause pain and infection. That is the challenge that the Department of Health and this country face. There is an overwhelming case for more action. I support wholeheartedly the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Several issues must be examined in this debate. The main objections in principle are ethical and scientific. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, accurately described the situation concerning children in Birmingham. I have no doubt that the condition of their teeth has improved; I do not contest that. However, there are other ways of securing good teeth; for example, what was the effect of the withdrawal of school milk on the condition of children's teeth?
	We are talking about the risk to adults. For example, what effect does drinking fluoridated water have on older people whose bones are weak? What is the effect of using fluoridated water in washing machines and dishwashers? The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about farm animals. Those questions must be answered to the satisfaction of Members of the Committee and the community.
	The ethical dimension is one of civil liberties, as mentioned earlier. There is a principle of informed consent to medical treatment as an individual. The Patient's Charter restates the patient's right to give or withhold consent to treatment, as does the EU Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997.
	To some extent, the scientific arguments have been put. I do not want to speak for too long, as many Members of the Committee wish to participate. Already in this debate the York committee's report has been prayed in aid of fluoridation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about health authorities, medical officers and others who have long advocated fluoridation. However, I am concerned that, as a result of the York scientific committee on the subject, the chairman, Professor Trevor Sheldon, has considerable worries about how the York report has been interpreted.
	I shall quote from an open letter from Professor Sheldon, a scientist of the highest integrity, to interested individuals and scientific bodies about his concerns over how his research was interpreted. He says:
	"In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation, recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the University of York, and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying, then, that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.
	1. Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from 'massive'.
	2. The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was not characterised as 'just a cosmetic issue'.
	3. The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
	4. There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health".
	We can argue about that one way or the other, because I am not entirely sure that I agree. It continues:
	"5. The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost- effectiveness of water fluoridation, or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
	6. Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
	7. The review team was surprised that, in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades, there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken, providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation".
	Professor Sheldon was the head of the research team conducting the York University research. I am not saying that he is totally right, but I would like the Minister to address those points in his reply and tell us whether what Professor Sheldon says is important to the debate that we are having on this final form of the legislation.

Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord sits down, I would like to say that, although he speaks from the Front Bench for this party, he is not speaking on behalf of the party. Many of us would certainly not go along the line that he is taking. I have always taken the view that if we put chlorine atoms into the water, fluorine atoms will not make much difference, but that is a fairly unscientific scientific remark. I dissent from my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth on this matter and will vote for the Government.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My noble friend Lord Tordoff should note that I did not say that I was out and out opposed to fluoridation. I am saying only that the professor raised important points of principle to which we need answers. I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly.

Baroness Trumpington: I think that I am entitled to say my bit just to prove that I am not just a simple old scrubber.

The Countess of Mar: I must put the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, right—she implied that I was one.

Baroness Trumpington: That changes the whole picture. Having taken this Bill through this House originally, anything I have to say is superfluous. I hope the Committee listened carefully to my ex-boss, with whom I did not always agree, but he made a magnificent speech on this occasion. Typical, typical Liberal, sitting on the fence as usual. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, carefully read the whole of the proceedings for the last time the fluoridation of water Bill was in this House. If he had, he would have found the answers to many of his questions. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, should return to the goat's cheese again.

Lord Monson: Time and again, the Prime Minister has declared passionately that he wants Britain to be at the heart of Europe. If Mr Blair is really determined that Britain should be at the heart of Europe, the very first thing he should do is to order this amendment to be torn up and thrown into the dustbin. Of the 18 countries in western Europe, some of them within the European Union and some outside it, no fewer than 15 have totally rejected fluoridation. Some of those had experimented with fluoridation only to abandon it when they concluded that the disadvantages and dangers outweighed any possible benefits. That counters the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that we have been here before, because when he introduced fluoridation, rather more western European countries practised it. Time has moved on and many of them have changed their minds.
	Indeed, exactly three months ago today, on 9th April 2003, the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt—the home city of the splendid Wimbledon men's singles champion—abandoned fluoridation after 41 years. Among other reasons for the decision was that there was no evidence that the incidence of caries in the area had been reduced.
	I shall read to the Committee a list of countries that have rejected fluoridation: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. Only three countries out of the 18 still practise fluoridation—this country, in part, the Republic of Ireland, although not Northern Ireland, and, to a minor extent, Spain.
	The total population of countries where some fluoridation takes place is 98.5 million. The total population of countries and regions that shun fluoridation is 286 million. In the latter figure I have included Northern Ireland, but excluded La France d'outre Mer, which, although technically part of France and the EU, is in reality not part of western Europe.
	If we assume that the ratio of doctors, dentists and other medical professionals to the population as a whole is roughly the same throughout western Europe, it follows that there are approximately three times as many medical experts living in non-fluoridating countries as in partly fluoridating ones. Unless we believe that, quite unlike their British counterparts, continental medical experts are timid and frightened of raising their heads above the parapet, which is an unlikely scenario, it figures that a minimum of 75 per cent of medical experts throughout western Europe are at least hostile to fluoridation or, at best, doubtful that its alleged benefits outweigh its disadvantages and possible dangers.
	Sweden, for example, has been a country greatly admired by members of the British Labour Party over past decades. Sweden is a highly efficient, highly safety-conscious country, yet it outlaws fluoridation. It is a criminal offence to add fluoride to the water supply in Sweden. I invite noble Lords on the Government Benches and, indeed, some on the Opposition Benches to ponder that.
	I have not even started on the libertarian objections. For the time being, I shall not do so, because I know from experience that libertarian arguments cut little ice with many on the Government Benches and quite a few on the Opposition Benches. However, the weight of expert medical and environmental opinion throughout western Europe must surely give noble Lords food for thought.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I declare an interest, because I have not got a single natural tooth in my head. That has nothing to do with fluoride one way or the other, but to do with reading books while riding bicycles.
	Having declared that I have no interest in that way, I must say that I am totally on the side of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which I usually am when she speaks in your Lordships' House. I am also speaking on behalf of the Green Party. We think that mass medication is wrong and that mass medication of poisons is especially wrong. The jury throughout the world is out on the medical effects of fluoridation, and this is by no means as open and shut a case as the pressure groups that have been bombarding us would have your Lordships believe. This is a bad amendment and we should reject it.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I shall refer briefly to a couple of points before moving on to consider the scientific evidence for fluoridation. I apologise, because there was something that I forgot to say earlier. I would like to ask the Minister, who may write to me afterwards if he wishes, what provision is made for any areas which, after some years of fluoridation, wish to change their minds and stop existing schemes. If that is already provided for and I have misread it, I can leave it, but I was going to make the point that it is already an issue up in the North West. I hope that there are mechanisms for expressing and giving effect to change in local opinion.
	I would like to preface my remarks with just a repeat from our earlier debate. I stress once again that it is a mistake to believe, sadly, that the dental lobby or the Government or health authorities give always impartial information in this controversy. Some of that will become apparent as I speak.
	I have probably put in as much time on the recent scientific arguments over fluoridation as anyone. I asked the Questions in your Lordships' House which led, when I was supported by Sir Iain Chalmers of the UK Cochrane Centre (for evidence-based medicine), to the setting up of the systematic scientific review of the evidence world-wide at the University of York, which reported in 2000 and on whose advisory panel I sat for nearly a year. Since then I have been involved, unfortunately, in numerous debates arising from the spin that has been put on that report. This has kept me in close contact with the senior independent scientists who took part in the review process—and by independent I mean not affiliated, professionally, financially or emotionally, to the pro- or anti-fluoridation lobbies. Always I have taken care to write or say nothing that they would consider scientifically unsound. I say all this, my Lords, because I recognise how difficult it is to be heard to criticise the big and respected organisations such as the British Dental and Medical Associations. But criticise them I must.
	First, however, a word about scientific reviews. The problem with the traditional review or inquiry, and there have been many on fluoridation, is that you do not always know what studies the chosen "experts" have selected to look at, or why, how reliable those studies are, what might have been omitted, how much they have relied on other people's views, and indeed what the affiliations or preconceptions of those "experts" might be.
	In contrast there is the much rarer and more thorough systematic scientific review, which to their credit the Government set up in the case of fluoridation. In this, a specialist review team searches the world literature, relying only on primary studies and not on the past opinions of others, according to established criteria, which ensures as far as possible that nothing is missed, and that everything relevant is assessed and graded for reliability. With the York review this was all conducted publicly on a website which invited contributions from around the world; it was openly peer-reviewed; and the whole exercise was overseen by a panel which, as I said, was carefully chosen to represent opponents as well as proponents of fluoridation, which ensured, as I can testify, that biases were recognised and allowed for.
	I make this point to illustrate the difference between what is known as "eminence-based" medicine and "evidence-based" medicine. I am disappointed that the Chief Medical and Dental Officers' briefing paper did not bring out this distinction as a guide to understanding where the most reliable evidence is to be found. Of course traditional reviews have their uses; but they are open to inconsistency, selective presentation, and influence from the prevailing scientific culture, in a way that systematic reviews are not. And thus it is quite possible for a systematic review to produce an answer that contradicts what previous less rigorous reviews reported.
	This—this is an answer to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made about there being nothing new since 1985—is what has happened with York, though you would not guess it from the briefings we have all received from the big campaigning organisations. York, for all the lip service paid to it, was a considerable shock to the dental and medical communities who have promoted fluoridation so long and loud, and it has been misquoted, misrepresented and downplayed ever since. I was particularly pleased to hear the quotation used by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. He might have added that, in a later letter, Trevor Sheldon included the British Medical Association on the list of miscreants who had spun the report. Damage limitation has been the name of the game, as also—here is an analogy—with hormone replacement therapy which was recently shown by high-quality studies to be harmful to the heart, not protective as everyone thought on the basis of previous inferior research which, interestingly, the senior reviewer at York tells me was actually of better quality than we have for fluoride. That, my Lords, should give pause for thought.
	York could not find one good-quality study in 50 years of the world literature. This meant, and it said so clearly, that it could conclude nothing with confidence: not effectiveness, not safety, not harm, and certainly not the hoped-for reduction in inequalities in dental health for which the evidence was weakest of all. It found varying degrees of probability across the questions it addressed, depending on the quantity and quality of the evidence: the less reliable, the more likely the conclusion could be wrong—an obvious point that has eluded many commentators. My distinguished colleagues from York assure me that no prescription drug would get a licence on evidence like this. Most probable—York was careful here to say "suggests", not "concludes" or "confirms" which is how pro-fluoride groups have changed the wording—is a reduction in caries, which might be of the order of 15 per cent (dentists used to claim 50 per cent or more). York stressed that it would need better-quality studies to be confident of this finding. An unexpectedly high level of dental fluorosis, or mottling, also looks probable.
	What about safety? We read in our briefings "Water fluoridation is safe"; "there is no evidence that fluoride causes bone disease, cancer, birth defects". I refer your Lordships to Section 8 of the York report, on page 48: 14 analyses from studies found an association with bone fracture. In Section 9.6, page 58, nine analyses found an association with cancer. In Section 10, pages 59-61, there are similar associations with Down's syndrome, all-cause mortality (including infant mortality), and mental functioning. No evidence, my Lords? No evidence?
	Let me complete the picture. These associations were weak, because the few studies were of poor quality. And there were a roughly equal number of poor studies that found no association. So the picture is mixed: there is "no clear association", in York's words. But this is not the same as "no evidence": a phrase too often used recklessly, not least by the President of the Faculty of Public Health and others in a letter in yesterday's Times, which some of your Lordships may have seen. The implications for policy and research are quite different. This is why York recommended further research in three areas of possible harm (not two, as the CMO and CDO's paper wrongly states; their briefing is not a sound guide to the research needs that have been identified).
	These are not quibbles. To those who would dismiss them I would say, "Do you want your policy to be based on good science, or not?" Because if you do, then you still have work to do. If you do not, you have no business promoting it to the public. To claim water fluoridation is safe is as scientifically indefensible as to claim that it causes hip fracture or excess mortality. At this stage of the evidence, we simply do not know.
	I ought to quickly mention the Medical Research Council, which was asked to make research recommendations in the wake of York. Unfortunately, among much helpful work, it muddied the water by second-guessing some of the findings, without York's care or rigour, and came up with the erroneous statement that York had "confirmed" fluoridation's effectiveness, which has been much quoted as an MRC finding. I have, in fact, placed a detailed critique of this report, endorsed by the senior reviewer from York, and of another recent report by an all-party group, in your Lordships' Library.
	It has been a learning experience for me, my Lords, having come in a few years ago as an outsider to the scientific process, to observe how even the most eminent participants find it hard to abandon old beliefs when they are shown to be unsupported, and how unvalidated comparisons in dental health between the fluoridated West Midlands and other areas continue to be advertised. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was, unfortunately, as guilty of that as many other people. They are not, I am afraid, when it comes to such issues, good science and nor are league tables. The other side, if you want to play that game, can trade you league table for league table. I will not start now. It is the good studies that are needed, not the uncontrolled comparisons. If there had been any good science supporting that, it would have been found by the York review: it was not, and it did not even meet its admission criteria.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: In view of what the noble Earl says about Birmingham, how does he account for the fact that the number of five year-olds in Manchester suffering tooth decay is nearly twice as great as the number in Birmingham?

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Without good science, I cannot account for it. Observers were not blinded to the status of the people whom they looked at, so that they knew whether they were fluoridated or not when assessing the decay. There is a lot of variation in assessment of decay, well described in the dental literature. There was no controlling for sugar consumption in different areas. The science in that area was a mess. That is why one cannot make firm assumptions however clear the observations seem to be to people on the ground. I am sorry, but in this instance one has a right to ask for good science, as I said before.
	I was going to go on to say that in many ways the question of abandoning beliefs is no different for many of us. In answer to what the noble Lord said, it is the enthusiasm, to some extent, I could say, of the crystal healers who say, "Who needs proper science? We can see that it works and we know that it works so we do not need to do any proper studies". In addition to this, some pretty disgraceful things have been written by people in positions of power and responsibility who should know better. I just want to mention a couple because some of them will be things that your Lordships have seen. In May Sir Iain Chalmers, Professor Sheldon and I had a letter published in The Sunday Times in which we made some of the points from the York report that I have made this afternoon. Alongside our letter was one from a representative of the British Medical Association supporting fluoridation. Her opening sentence read:
	"Every major independent and government expert committee . . . has concluded that water fluoridation is one of the most effective ways of reducing tooth decay".
	Since this is demonstrably untrue in the case of the largest and best, York, and the most recent, the Medical Research Council—I know these two reports well enough—I challenged her three times to substantiate this from the reports themselves, or else publicly retract a statement which will have misled thousands of readers. In three replies she simply defended the BMA's support for fluoridation; only in her final letter did she address my point with the words that her Association,
	"interprets the York report as further evidence that water fluoridation . . . [etc. etc.]"—
	a very different matter from what she had publicly claimed. She gave her position, by the way, as Head of Science and Ethics.
	I cite this, my Lords, as an example that can stand proxy for much that has been said and written after York: reckless, and in my view an abuse of a privileged position. The main offences have been lack of scientific rigour and selective presentation of evidence. What you are not told in briefings is often just as important as what you are. Other examples have come through the post recently, notably a briefing yesterday—I believe one of your Lordships quoted this—from the Chief Executive of something called the International Dental Health Foundation, who has clearly never read the York report but has convinced himself that it "totally refuted" any adverse health claims. No wonder some local communities vote for fluoridation when fed material like this by people with degrees after their names.
	I wish there were time to dissect the BMA's current parliamentary briefing, which is one of the most scientifically disreputable documents I have seen on the subject. But there is not. Nor, alas, is there time to go into the other elements of the fluoridation controversy—which other noble Lords have covered—which are no less important than the science. I would simply, as a way towards finishing my remarks, invite your Lordships' attention to one short paragraph on the second page where the BMA, drawing a parallel with the iron and calcium that doctors give to children who are deficient, says:
	"Fluoride as a deficiency should be treated no differently".
	This is about the only part of the briefing I agree with. Leaving aside that fluoride deficiency is not recognised by the Department of Health as a condition, fluoride could indeed be given like iron or calcium: tailored to individual need, in a controlled dose, for a limited period, monitored, always respecting the patient's right to refuse treatment. That is how medicines and supplements are given. This would indeed be the way to give fluoride.
	But consider fluoridation, my Lords. It is given indiscriminately—forget the notion of "targeting", which is simply not possible via the mains water supplies (Czechoslovakia and Switzerland stopped fluoridating partly because over 99 per cent of fluoridated water misses its "targets")—to populations many of whom do not want it and cannot benefit from it, without the normal procedures of individual informed consent, which is a hallowed principle, as we heard, of medical ethics enshrined both in the Patient's Charter and the European Biomedicine Convention, without any medical licensing procedures—that is an odd area—by an uncontrolled dose (you get however much you drink or cook with), and for a lifetime. It is the most peculiar medical treatment of our times—which is perhaps why few countries practise it—one which common sense and caution suggest would need the very highest standards of evidence for safety and efficacy.
	If proponents want to promote it on evidence which is substantially less good than for a drug prescribed one-to-one by a doctor who knows your history, and in the full knowledge that the two most recent scientific reports have highlighted the need for more research because we do not know enough about its effects, then this is enthusiasm run wild. Fluoride is already given to over 5 million people, which on the most recent figures is probably more than are taking any other drug. For the sake of the further millions who may be at risk from this measure, and on grounds both of medical ethics and good science, I urge your Lordships to reject an amendment which, given the unshakeable conviction of one party to this debate, is likely to bring this situation much nearer.

Lord Turnberg: First, I express an interest as an ex-physician with a scientific bent—in case it is unclear where I am coming from with my comments. We have all been inundated with a large number of letters of support for fluoridation. Personally, I have not had any letters against. As has been suggested, the weight of letters alone is hardly a reason for agreeing. But in this case I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the majority.
	There is not a great deal that is new that is not already in much of the literature which most noble Lords received. I believe that the evidence for benefit seems strong. I, too, now have had the opportunity to read the York study, largely after being prompted by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I am rather more reassured than he is, having read it fairly quickly but, I think, thoroughly. There does not seem any doubt that areas of the country where fluoride has been introduced have, by and large, reduced the incidence of caries. Where fluoride has been withdrawn—as it has been in one or two places—the incidence has risen.
	We may argue—certainly the York report argues—that the evidence varies from place to place and that some evidence is not terribly strong. But all the evidence points in the same direction; it all seems to say the same thing. On page 43—

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. While the probabilities are as he said, in fact, the range included a possible disbenefit. They did not all point in that direction. The fact that they were all open to possible bias does not help the case in adding studies to it. I hope that the noble Lord noted the word "suggests" and not "concludes". I go with him; it looks a probability. But the question is: is a probability of that degree enough? Perhaps we differ.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, there have been a very large number of studies, most of which were discarded in the York study because they did not meet certain criteria of reasonable evidence. On page 14 of the report, there is a series of results from about 12 studies, all of which show the same thing—that is, there is benefit. Presumably, those were selected because they seemed to be relatively unbiased.
	One of the problems is that it will not be possible to do a gold standard double blind trial in this type of situation where large populations are involved. We cannot get that. We may obtain increasing amounts of studies which lend weight to the proposal; I believe that we have a rather large number in that direction.
	I should touch on one aspect which has not been mentioned. Children with caries often require a general anaesthetic for treatment. While general anaesthetic for children is fairly safe, there are clearly determined risks. Every so often one reads of a disaster from dental anaesthesia. So preventing even the rare occurrences alone seems a valuable, worthwhile aim. There is also some evidence—not strong; certainly not enough to produce it as strong evidence—suggesting that chronic mild infection in the mouth predisposes to chronic ill health. For example, it may predispose to heart attacks. The evidence is not strong but there are hints and people are looking at chronic infection in the mouth. A healthy mouth is worth while, provided that fluoridation itself does not cause commensurate harm, as the noble Earl suggested. Again, however, all the evidence favours no measurable risks.
	I went through the York report looking for the evidence. Perhaps I may quote some statements from the report:
	"Using a qualitative method of analysis, there is no clear association of hip fracture with water fluoridation . . . A meta-regression of bone structure studies also found no association with water fluoridation . . . There were 26 studies of the association of water fluoridation and cancer".
	Eighteen of these were thought to produce rather poor evidence and were not counted, but eight provided very reasonable evidence. The report continues:
	"There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. This was
	also true for osteosarcoma and bone/joint cancers. Only two studies considered thyroid cancer and neither found a statistically significant association . . . Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found".
	To my mind, for a study to quote in that way was not bad evidence.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Does the noble Lord agree with my point that no clear association, which is what I said that York had found, is not the same as no evidence, which is what people are saying in our briefings? That is where we go wrong; that is, in the suggestion that there are no studies which suggest it. They go both ways and it cannot be said that there is cancer any more than it can be said that it is safe. I think we are probably at one on that, but it is not the same as saying that there is no evidence.

Lord Turnberg: The problem of proving a situation of no risk is extremely difficult.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I said that it is not the same as saying that there is no evidence.

Lord Turnberg: All the studies quoted did not show evidence of an increased risk. That is all that one can say about them.
	The proposal before us does not seek to thrust fluoridation on people by government diktat, but to allow local communities to have access to fluoridation if that is what they agree they want.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I spoke in the debate on the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. In all my years in this House, I have never known quite such a bitter issue. Fortunately our debate today has not been so bitter; it has been good natured. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, was not present on that occasion, but I have crossed swords many a time with the noble Earl on this issue. Indeed, he was furious when once he sent me a document and I quoted from it. He then wrote to say that I had picked out the only bit that supported fluoride, which of course I had done.
	As with all other noble Lords, I shall declare my interest in supporting the argument for the fluoridation of water. For a long time I was a dentist in general practice. In my early days in London the standards of dental health in my part of the city were very low, although they had improved greatly by the time I left practice. However, in those early days, children would come to the surgery, crying in pain. General anaesthesia was the only way to deal with the problem. In his comments earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, mentioned how this is still the situation in the North West.
	However, today there is an added problem. Those children who require extractions performed under general anaesthesia no longer can have them in the dentist's surgery. On safety grounds the operations must be performed in hospital. While that is desirable for safety reasons, it means long waiting lists so that children who are in such terrible pain are now waiting much longer to have that pain relieved.
	I believe that there is a very strong case here. Fluoridating the water would help the underprivileged and would lessen inequalities. People who come into the dentist's surgery in that state may have never owned a toothbrush or even thought about their teeth. They are totally unaware of what to do until their child wakes up screaming in agony, perhaps with several dental abscesses. To compare conditions in the kind of deprived area I am describing with those in Switzerland, with its high standards in medicine, dentistry and hygiene, is really not to make a valid comparison.
	I should like to make just a few points because I have made them so many times over the years that no one wants to hear them again. It is now 18 years since that last major debate in 1985, but it is 39 years since water fluoridation was introduced in Birmingham and, in 1964, in Canberra, Hobart and Townsville in Australia. If there was a serious health risk I believe that a pattern would have shown up. People living in those fluoridated communities would be showing a different health pattern from those not living in a fluoridated area. The one significant difference is the state of their teeth. There is no evidence at all from Sydney, which more recently changed to fluoridated water, that people contract more cancers than those living in Brisbane, now the only unfluoridated capital city in Australia.
	There is plenty of evidence, however, to back up what was said about the patient from Sandwell in Birmingham. If a child or young teenager with terrible teeth visits a Sydney dental surgery, the dentist knows that the child has come from the bush where the local water supply has been used, and so has not had the benefit of fluoride. He will know in one minute that that child has not been brought up in an area with fluoridated water.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I am grateful. I am sorry to be a nuisance to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Earl is always a nuisance.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Yes, but since she made the point about not seeing patterns, in the first place, patterns do not spring out at you. They need to be revealed by careful epidemiological studies: witness smoking and cancer. Secondly, when patterns do emerge—higher infant mortality has emerged there; we have no idea whether there is anything in it—and the pattern is presented to the authorities, as I or my colleagues have done, we are told that fluoride has not been looked at because it is not under suspicion. So you are in a no-win situation.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I cannot accept the argument of the noble Earl. I believe that there have been very detailed studies of health situations in all parts of the world. Australia is very efficient about studying its health trends. If there were differences over 40 years—we are talking here about two full generations of people who have been born and brought up with fluoridation—surely the evidence has lengthened as the years have gone by. It would not be possible to test all those millions of people simply out of interest, but they represent a test in themselves: the fact is that there is no difference in their health patterns from those of others.
	I turn to the Strathclyde case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fowler. Again, it proves the point from a dental perspective. When fluoride was added to the water supply, rates of decay reduced. When it was taken out again, rates of decay went up. We have seen much on the health scares about brittle bones and cancer. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has often highlighted them to me. Again, however, the York study does not support them.
	It is very important that the right to fluoridation must be established as a statutory obligation. Over the years, the water authorities that I have spoken to have always said that they would not fluoridate unless it was made obligatory because they did not want to face the cost, the difficulties created by people who oppose it or the possibility of litigation, a point raised earlier by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. So it is important that the amendment should make the point very clearly.
	Earlier today I spoke to a Member of Parliament from the Birmingham area. He said that the one thing on which he hoped the Government would give an assurance is that no referendums should be held in areas where the water is already fluoridated. People would be very upset if they thought there could be a risk of losing their fluoride. I noticed that, in opening, the Minister said that this amendment and the regulation would cover only areas which do not currently have fluoridated water. I am seeking his assurance that the amendment would not in any way allow regression in terms of referendums.
	Consultation is a different matter, of course. The Minister made the point in his speech that there may be circumstances in which it may be sought to reduce the proportion of fluoride in the water. All those points are covered in his amendment. But as I have said, the one matter that worries me is whether referendums are to be held in areas which currently have fluoridated water. I support the amendment.

Lord Rea: I sense—and rather hope—that the debate will soon draw to a close. I shall be extremely brief and concentrate on only one point. Several noble Lords have said or implied that the addition of fluoride to water supplies constitutes "mass medication". In fact, the fluoride used is the chemical salt of a naturally occurring element—fluorine—which is present at a higher level than one part per million in the ground water of some areas of the country, the best known being the area around Hartlepool, with no demonstrable adverse effects on health other than the minor cosmetic effect of dental fluorosis among a small proportion of the population.
	Exactly the same applies to the fluoridated areas of the country, particularly Birmingham. This suggests that the effects of artificially and naturally occurring fluoride are similar. But, to satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin—whom I admire greatly for his stalwart efforts to defend his corner, but he has not convinced me—and people who think like him—

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps I may enlighten the noble Lord. The uncertainty—and there is scientific uncertainty—around precisely that point is being laid to rest by a study which the Medical Research Council has just commissioned to see if naturally and artificially fluoridated water are the same. It is not known—it is accepted that there is doubt—and that study is getting under way.

Lord Rea: If the noble Earl had shown more patience, I was about to announce that very point.

Lord Chan: Perhaps I may make two small points based on information from the field in the north. Up until 1989, children in Huddersfield had the benefit of fluoridated water. As a result, from the dental records it would appear that children as young as three did not have caries. One study showed that three year-olds in Huddersfield had less than half as much tooth decay as children in non-fluoridated but otherwise similar areas such as Dewsbury. As a result of fluoridation, children in Huddersfield had less toothache and less need for a general anaesthetic to have a tooth extracted.
	Today, children living in Huddersfield no longer have the benefit of fluoride in the water. As a result, according to dentists, the average number of decayed teeth in children under five is 4.6, a definite increase. That is one piece of evidence from the field.
	The other piece of evidence comes from Shropshire and North Stoke, or Staffordshire, again in the north. In Shropshire there is fluoride in the water. In North Stoke there is no fluoride in the water. The number of affected teeth in North Stoke is 2.13 as opposed to one in Shropshire.
	Only 10 per cent of England has fluoridated water; so it is not as though it is the whole of the country. My plea is for the Government to give an opportunity to those parts of the country where there is high dental decay to make up their minds about fluoridation because there are definite benefits.

Lord King of West Bromwich: I support the amendment. Noble Lords would expect that of me coming from Sandwell, which has done extremely well under fluoridation. I hope very much that the amendment will be agreed to.
	The amendment is necessary to correct a flaw in the existing legislation. It would ensure that water companies are required to fluoridate when asked to do so by health authorities or other health bodies after due consultation. I understand that the amendment has the support of Water UK, the organisation that represents the whole of the UK water industry.
	Despite an overall improvement in dental health over the past 30 years, tooth decay remains a significant public health problem in many parts of the UK. In socially deprived areas such as Sandwell, in non-fluoridated communities as many as one in three children under the age of five will have one or more decayed teeth extracted.
	Dental decay is also a problem for adults. In 1998, 46 per cent of adults in England had active tooth decay and 6 per cent had six or more decayed or unsound teeth. In both children and adults there are major inequalities, with a far greater problem of decay in the poorer sections of the community. The addition of fluoride into water supplies could dramatically reduce the levels of tooth decay and give children a decent and pain-free start in life.
	In spite of the many myths surrounding water fluoridation, it is safe. None of the medical research organisations has found evidence to support claims that fluoride at the level suggested—that is, one part per million—causes cancer, bone disease, kidney disease or birth defects.
	It is true that fluoride can be made available via other mechanisms. However, they all require ongoing positive personal action by the individual concerned and, in the case of younger children, by a parent. Some also require action by a dental professional. In other words, to be effective they need people to alter their behaviour and sustain that behavioural change. Therefore such other techniques are not practical as public health measures.
	Water fluoridation delivers greater reductions in decay than toothpaste and other techniques and reaches the whole population rather than only those who adhere to a regular cleaning regime using fluoride toothpaste. It is also quite a cheap method. Water fluoridation costs around 50p. per person per year. This compares to a year's supply of toothpaste which costs around £10. So there are important reasons why we should consider water fluoridation as the preferred method of preventing tooth decay on a population basis and improving the health and welfare of poorer communities.
	I base my observations on my experience as chair of the education committee and leader of the Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell for the past 24 years. Sandwell's water supplies were fluoridated in 1986. Before then, the dental health record of Sandwell's children was among the worst in the country. Since water fluoridation was introduced in Sandwell, tooth decay rates have declined dramatically. The average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth per five year-old child fell from 2.55 in 1985 to 0.92 in 2001. It is now below the Department of Health target. All this was achieved through the hard work and commitment of John Charlton—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, referred—and his team and the BDA. My only regret is that water fluoridation was not available when I was young, otherwise I would not have to make my speech with false teeth.

The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: I add my support to the amendment. I wish to make two basic points. First, tooth decay is still a very significant public health problem in many parts of the United Kingdom. Secondly, I am persuaded that water fluoridation in areas of high need will provide significant benefits in dental health.
	Since I was ordained more than 30 years ago, I have lived and worked in the cities of Birmingham, Bradford and now in Newcastle. In Birmingham and Newcastle, water has been fluoridated for more than 30 years. In Bradford it has not, and it shows. We have already heard that dental health in Birmingham is among the best in the country. That means significantly less pain from toothache and abscesses; fewer days lost from school and work; and less need for emergency dental treatment. But in other parts of the country tooth decay remains an intransigent public health problem, and it is very strongly associated with child poverty.
	I am told that the national target is that five year-olds should have an average of no more than one decayed, missing or filled tooth. Birmingham and Newcastle, both fluoridated, approach that target. Sadly, Bradford and other cities which do not receive the benefits of fluoridated water, have almost three times that figure.
	It is important to consider what the cost would be of failing to fluoridate. A large number of children, especially from the poorer and more deprived communities, will continue to suffer avoidable pain and will have persisting poor dental health all through their adult lives. It is sadly true that the poorer the groups, the higher the levels of disease.
	I cannot think of another measure that could be introduced so economically and yet produce such a health gain for so many. The cost of not fluoridating is paid for by the continuing suffering and poor dental health of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. I am left asking why a child born in a poor family in Birmingham or Newcastle should be able to receive the benefits of fluoridation but not one born in similar circumstances in the city of Bradford.
	I support the amendment in seeking to ensure that when communities both need and want their water supplies fluoridated, they can expect the water supplier to comply with their request.

Baroness Cumberlege: I am one of those very dangerous people—a convert. Twenty years ago I was a member of the East Sussex area health authority and I remember very distinctly a very strong emotional debate in the town hall on this subject. The arguments were impressive, and I voted against fluoridation. I voted against it for technical, cost and emotional reasons. In the intervening years, I have grown older and wiser and have come to the conclusion, as has the right reverend Prelate, that it is negligent not to give the local population the choice of whether to have fluoride in their system.
	One of the impressive things about this debate is the position taken by the dental profession, a point which has not been made tonight. The profession has been consistent in promoting, in a very intelligent way, a way of reducing dental caries. That is both honourable and surprising. It is surprising because it works against dentists' professional financial interests. It is honourable because it is the right thing to do in the public interest.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, questioned whether fluoridation helps people in deprived areas. I looked at a study the other day which showed that in the 1980s, children in the most well off areas had the best teeth—not surprisingly. In Stourbridge, 74 per cent of five year-olds were completely free from decay. In the centre of Dudley, which had relatively high levels of deprivation, only 49 per cent of children were free from decay.
	In the 1990s, Dudley's water, as we have heard, was fluoridated, and things changed dramatically. In Stourbridge, whose water was not treated, the number of children free from tooth decay dropped to 65 per cent, whereas in the centre of Dudley where the water was fluoridated, the proportion rose to 69 per cent. That is pretty impressive stuff. The turn-around was very dramatic. Children in the most deprived part of the borough now have better teeth than those in the least deprived part. In areas of deprivation where water has not been treated—we have heard of pockets in London, Manchester and Liverpool—levels of tooth decay have remained stubbornly high.
	The noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Turnberg, talked about anaesthetics, which is an interesting point. It is hugely costly. In the Manchester dental hospital, three general anaesthetic sessions are carried out every week to remove painful, rotten teeth from children, some as young as two years old. Last year, a total of 1,500 general anaesthetics were given to children for tooth extraction. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that anaesthetics today are much safer, but I think those figures are quite appalling. In a relatively rich, civilised country, it is a disgrace that when we have the means to prevent terrible suffering, loss of school days and use of skilled professional time in this respect, we do not do something about it.
	The right reverend Prelate referred to costs. In the past, one argument put by the water undertaking was that the costs were very high. I understand that fluoridation costs are around 50 pence per person. Does that figure include capital costs or is it simply running costs?
	Ignoring the cost of anaesthetics, I understand a simple filling costs the NHS £10 per person. On the face of it, in financial terms fluoridating the water supply really must make sense. There are alternatives and they have been explored tonight, but the difficulty is that they require sustained behaviour change.
	I was responsible—no. I was about to say that I was responsible for AIDS and HIV. When I was a Minister, my portfolio included responsibility for HIV and AIDS. Time and time again, I wrestled with the fact that although the information was out there and people understood how they could contract HIV, the difficulty was in achieving and sustaining a change in behaviour. If we are talking seriously about oral health, getting children to take tablets every day or to return to the dentist for coatings or varnishes will not work. It is much better to fluoridate, especially with the sort of communities we have been discussing.
	The Government's proposals are sensible. I like the idea of choice, provided, of course, that there is consultation and all the due processes are followed. I like the idea of geographical selectivity and discretion. It is absolutely right that strategic health authorities should be in charge of this process because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, they have the proper advice, the research base and the scientific evidence.
	The stumbling block in the past has always been the reluctance of the water authorities and, latterly, the water companies. I understand from the Minister that negotiations are still taking place with the water undertakings, which is very important. If they want a degree of comfort—although I am not sure it is necessary—I hope the Government will do all they can to provide it.
	We have heard a lot tonight from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, whom I respect hugely. He is so thorough on this subject when it comes to looking at the research. He mentioned Professor Sir Iain Chalmers and Professor Sheldon, whom I know well and respect. But there is one thing I would like to say. I work a bit with the scientific community and whenever a report is produced scientists always recommend further research. I can understand why. They have extremely lively, inventive minds, and they want to progress further. But the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, is right. We want to be more sure about some of the science.

The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she has spoken about nothing but teeth. We are ingesting fluoride—I ingest it when I am at home—and it goes right through the system. Is she aware that in 50 years there has never been a full chronic health study on humans who have been treated with fluoride?

Baroness Cumberlege: I understand that point, but we do not know how quite a lot of the medications that we use work—I am thinking of aspirin. Nobel Prize winners have sought the reasons why aspirin works. Sometimes we have to go forward without having the total research base. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said. In the end, one cannot know absolutely everything.

The Countess of Mar: I agree entirely that we will never know everything. I have had my own experience with organophosphates. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, told me at one stage that there was no evidence that organophosphates were not perfectly safe. We now know differently.
	I have to remind the noble Baroness of the dictum that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If one does not look for problems, one is not going to find them. There is a cycle involved.

Baroness Cumberlege: I am not recommending that we do not do further research, but there are occasions when one must go forward with something without knowing the absolute reasons why. I was very interested in the paper that we received from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer. They point out—and I believe that it is right—that we have more than 40 years experience in England of artificial fluoridation, but there are generations of experience in some communities of natural fluoride levels matching those used in water fluoridation systems. No evidence of harm has been demonstrated in areas of England with natural fluoride of around one part per million.
	It hurts me to say this—it is very painful—but I totally support the Government in what they are trying to do.

Lord Monson: As the noble Baroness mentioned me by name, before she sits down will she say why children in the industrial cities of France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, the Netherlands and so on do not seemingly have the dental problems to which she referred? Why are medical establishments in those countries not keen on fluoridation?

Baroness Cumberlege: I have to confess to being something of a Euro-sceptic. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, dealt with that point very well indeed. Other countries are so different, not only culturally but in their diets and everything else, so I am not sure that the comparison is very useful.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is now confirmed that this measure should have been introduced in a Bill and not by means of an amendment to another Bill. We have spent a lot of time on it, and we are going to spend a lot more time on it. I wish that the matter had been brought forward in a proper way by means of a Bill.
	I return to the point about consultation, which has not been properly cleared up. The proposition seems to be that the people who carry out the consultation will be the very people who are in favour of one side of the argument. That simply cannot be right. It would be like the Labour Government being put in charge of the next election and being able to use taxpayers' money for their literature and campaign and denying it to all the other parties. Perhaps the Minister would like that—I would have liked it, once upon a time, before I was expelled from the party. But never mind about that.
	The fact of the matter is that we need assurances before the Government introduce their proposal. Will the Minister tell us what consultations he will have with various people about the consultation process? That is my first question.
	The measure will lead to the removal of individuals' rights to refuse compulsory medication. That is recognised in all democratic societies as a fundamental and inalienable right. The purpose of the amendment is said to be the improvement in the dental health of children—not even all children but particularly children of poor families. It is not to save children or others from life-threatening illnesses. Indeed, the outcome of better dental health in children can, as we have already heard, be achieved by other means. We have been told that a toothbrush and toothpaste would cost £10 per annum, as against 50 pence for fluoridation. But £10 per annum is only 19 pence per week—the cost of a Mars bar. If the child did not have the Mars bar, that would help the child to retain his teeth. So there are other means of bringing about the same result.
	Why, then, should the whole population—children and adults—be forced to drink fluoridated water? There will be no alternative. One cannot do otherwise than drink fluoridated water. One has no option, as water is a life-supporting property, to which there is no alternative. Indeed, as we have heard, people could be ingesting a substance that could do them harm. Furthermore, it could bring about apathy in certain parts of the population about personal dental hygiene. People may say, "Oh well, we have fluoride in the water now, we needn't worry about looking after our teeth as the Government are doing it for us".
	What about the damage to the environment? The average daily consumption per person is roughly 32 gallons, of which less than a gallon is ingested. By children, that is much less than a gallon. Thirty-one gallons goes to the land, the rivers and the sea and, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has pointed out, to lots of animals as well. That could do them all very grave harm. Have any studies been done to discover exactly what damage will be done to the environment?
	We know that fluorides used in water are toxic. They are also classified as dangerous substances under the EU dangerous substances directive of 1976. However, there is no indication of that in pro-fluoridation literature. An article from the Guardian on 27th June headed, "Failure to test chemicals 'puts lives at risk'". There are 30,000 chemicals identified by the European Commission as not tested, and fluoride happens to be one of them. Those issues must be considered before the measure is brought into law.
	What about human rights? There is no doubt that water fluoridation is a medical intervention by the state. It is not a water treatment process but a medical intervention. We do not know for certain what are the long-term adverse effects of administering an unregistered medicinal substance. Have the Government considered the implications of the articles in the European human rights charter, which do not permit the administration of a medicine or medical treatment? Have they considered our own Human Rights Act 1998, which implemented the European convention into British law? Have they considered all the legal implications? In my view, the legal and human rights implications are very serious and—if the Government are faced with litigation involving damage to health and/or the environment—could be highly costly to the taxpayers.
	I do not want to carry on for too long although others have done so at very great length. The proponents have not spared this House of their opinions, but I shall spare them of many more of mine. I believe that compulsory medication should not be imposed even if a large majority should be in favour of that. In a democracy, minorities, too, have rights. In respect of compulsory mass medication, a minority of one should be sufficient to prevent it being implemented.
	Finally, I say to noble Lords who support this measure: do not forget, this might be the thin end of the wedge. People might want to put other substances into the water. Noble Lords who are in favour of this mass medication might find those substances offensive to them and perhaps harmful to them. So we are in fact creating a precedent tonight that we may very well regret.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord says that we are creating a precedent tonight. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, no new precedent is being set. Parliament debated this matter in 1986—

Baroness O'Cathain: 1985.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In 1985, based on the arguments, Parliament decided that, if proper processes were gone through at local level, the water supply could be fluoridated. The problem is that the mealy-mouthed water authorities and then the water companies refused the requests of health service authorities which had gone through a proper process and proper consultation. All this amendment seeks to do is ensure that, after the proper processes have been gone through, those water authorities and companies can no longer thwart the decision of those public health authorities.

Baroness Byford: I apologise for intervening. I followed what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. However, I think he was being slightly unkind to the water companies. What is being proposed now is that the companies will be indemnified. Perhaps there would not have been such a delay if there had been such a proposal on the earlier occasion. I was not in Parliament in those days, so I was not part of that argument. However, I think that the noble Lord's slighting of the water companies was a little unjustified.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but the fact is that some water authorities, and I think of Severn Trent in particular, were prepared to take the right decision. I am very sorry that other water authorities, particularly the one that covered the North West, did not take a similar position. The fact is that children in Manchester and the North West have suffered terrible oral health because of those authorities' failure to take the right decision.

Lord Colwyn: Like the—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Colwyn: Is the noble Lord still speaking?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Let us get it right. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, intervened on my speech—which in fact was coming very quickly to a close. He really must be answered.

Noble Lords: No.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The longer that noble Lords interrupt me the longer it is going to take. They know that I will not be intimidated.
	Under the 1995 Act, it was not absolutely compulsory. Now it is going to be made compulsory. The water undertakers will not be able to refuse to do it under any circumstances if the local health authority insists on it after consultation. I only hope that the consultation will be proper.

Lord Colwyn: Like my noble friend Lord Fowler, I have a strong sense of deja vu this evening. I apologise for extending the debate and I think that it is going to be a very late evening. I have been involved in debates on fluoridation regularly over the past 30 years in your Lordships' House. My debating opponents have changed but the arguments have not. My noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Baldwin knows that I suffer a certain amount of inner conflict with my connections with complementary medicine. However, as a practising dental surgeon, I support the simple legislative process that would allow the addition of small amounts of fluoride to bring the water concentration to one part per million for 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the population, targeted at areas where tooth decay rates are unacceptably high. The proposed removal of the decision from water companies to local communities should make that simple public health issue much easier. However, the opponents of fluoridation have a knack of getting their way. I hope that this amendment will put an end to that.
	Sir Donald Acheson's report, the Independent Enquiry into Inequalities in Health, acknowledged that although dental health had improved, there were still serious inequalities. This Government came to power with promises to reduce inequalities in health. Dentists looked to the Government to address the problems of high decay rates in deprived areas and to make NHS dentistry available to all patients who wanted it. Some 80 per cent of dental disease can be found in only 20 per cent of the population. That is the poorest 20 per cent.
	Although I can understand the moral issue against the concept of forced medication, it is the adjustment of the level of a natural ionic content. Is it morally right to deprive children in some of our poorer communities a better quality of life by improving their dental health? Is it morally acceptable to allow children to suffer the pain and discomfort of decayed teeth and allow them to experience the trauma of tooth extraction, sometimes under general anaesthetic, when we know of a simple way of adjusting the concentration of a naturally occurring element that goes a long way to alleviating these problems?
	We are not discussing the majority of children whom your Lordships may know. We are trying to help children who may not own a toothbrush, have no access to toothpaste and have inappropriate diets. I spent many years of my own dental career treating some of these children, and the memory of some of the difficult cases will stay with me all of life. It is virtually impossible to remove teeth from children as young as two, three, four or five with a local anaesthetic. Sedative techniques are not ideal for young children, so general anaesthetic is the only option.
	As we have heard, each year thousands of children have general anaesthesia for the extraction of decayed teeth. All general anaesthetics are potentially dangerous. Although relatively rare, patients do die under general anaesthesia. The most recent figures that I have are that, in 1998, three children died under general anaesthetic having deciduous teeth removed. As my noble friend Lady Gardner reminded us, general anaesthesia is not allowed now in general dental practice, so those children are referred to hospital, specialist or community centres. In the days when general anaesthesia was used in general practice, I removed teeth from young children who had to be forcefully anaesthetised. It is not an experience that I would wish on dentist, surgeon or patient. It can leave a child with a long-standing fear of dentistry.
	Apart from the avoidance of suffering among children and anxiety among their parents, any reduction in demand for paediatric general anaesthetics would free up a huge amount of scarce anaesthetic expertise and financial resource. I have heard nothing new this evening except the usual misconceptions. The time has come to create a democratic way of enabling communities, not water companies, to take the decision.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have an on-balance decision to make tonight. I have been trying very hard to make up my mind whether it is an advantage that the majority of those who are going to vote tonight are not actually in the Chamber. However, as long as the Minister gives an assurance in his response that he will not adduce our voting practices as an adequate form of determining opinion on public consultation, I shall be content, at least on that particular matter.
	There are just three or four points that I wish to pick up. A number of Members of the Committee have mentioned fluoride that occurs naturally in some places in water supplies. That is in the form of calcium fluoride; it is not hexafluorosilicic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate. Those are the only two substances that are permitted to be added to water under this group of amendments. We should be clear that we are talking about different things. Calcium fluoride is a relatively innocuous substance. But that is neither here nor there.
	The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, did the Committee a considerable favour with his resume and summing up of Professor Sheldon's study which I have also come across. Other noble Lords also mentioned it. There is no point in my repeating the noble Earl's remarks except to say that the study raises serious questions.
	There is always a problem with scientific evidence. I ran into that for the first time when the Science and Technology Select Committee examined medical uses of cannabis. Some 5,000 years' use of cannabis in the pharmacopoeia was not considered to be scientific evidence. There is no doubt that if you put fluoride into water there is some reduction—that is what we are talking about—in dental caries. It does not prevent dental caries and it does not cure them but there is some reduction in their occurrence.
	We are not solely putting these substances into water for human benefit. The bulk of the water we use in our homes is used in baths, toilet cisterns, washing machines and so on. From there it goes down the drain into the sewage plant where all the nasties are cleaned out. However, the Minister did not respond to my question of whether it was possible to get the fluoride out of water in the sewage treatment process. If he could give me an assurance that that could be done, I would say no more and we could perhaps stop the debate. So far as I can see we are putting that fluoride into the general environment. We do not know the consequences of that. Evidence acquired over a limited period of time suggests that that is not a problem. However, that is all that we have. We may not have studied the matter for long enough.
	My noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to the 1995 Act. It was said that that Act constituted the decision of Parliament and that it was correct. It may have been right then but in the light of subsequent developments and advances in knowledge is it still correct? The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the vast majority of other countries in Europe have ceased adding fluoride to water. The United States is ceasing to add fluoride to water, as is much of Canada.
	At the very least we are rowing against the tide although someone suggested to me that perhaps Europe is not a good precedent for us to follow. That is neither here nor there. As I say, we have to take a decision on balance. It is not straightforward. Having heard what Professor Sheldon had to say, I come down on balance against the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Earlier this evening the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, called my noble friend Lord Livsey a typical Liberal. If being a typical Liberal involves recognising benefits—we have heard some very powerful arguments concerning benefits which I do not question—and asking for adequately funded public consultation, which I deeply regret the Government chose to oppose, I, for one, am pleased to be a typical Liberal Democrat. This is a difficult debate which will engender deep public interest. The Government have introduced the measure in a hurried manner and we have not had an adequate opportunity to debate it. I understand that in the short term the measure is a good thing. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, the Government should have introduced the measure in a Bill. In such a Bill we could have asked for strategic health authorities to apply the measure for, say, five years.
	One day this matter may be addressed through diet. Many noble Lords who support the measure admitted that in other countries—I believe that Switzerland and France were mentioned—fluoridation is not such an important issue as people's diets are not deficient in the relevant substance. It is awful that we cannot ensure that our children's diets are adequate in that regard.
	In the light of the Government's intransigence with regard to my amendments, I am minded to vote against this amendment. I do so as I do not believe that there will be adequate public consultation on the issue and the way in which the Government introduced the measure was not satisfactory.

Baroness Byford: I have waited patiently to speak. I express my own view. These Benches have a free vote on the issue. I hope that applies to the other Benches. I stress that I express very much my own views.
	I shall not rehearse the arguments for or against the measure as they have been explained fully. I shall not indulge in such repetition although I have a six-page speech which I shall obviously have to save for another day unless the Committee wishes me to start on it.

Noble Lords: No!

Baroness Byford: We know where we stand. I wish to make a few serious comments. We would not have had this debate had I not insisted that the Government could not simply bring this matter before the House on recommendation from another place. The fact that we have already spent four hours in discussing a few amendments reflects what others have said; namely, that the measure ought not to have been introduced in the way that it has. It is a bolt-on, an adjunct to the Bill. That is shabby and regrettable.
	My anxieties concern four items, some of which have already been dealt with. I refer particularly to the Government's amendment. First, I refer to indemnity. I would have made a strong plea for that to be considered. However, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, indicated that the Government were willing to consider that matter.
	Secondly, as regards the supply of fluoridated water to customers within the same supply area, I should be grateful if the Lord, Lord Warner, will explain how he envisages that process operating. For example, my area may not wish to have fluoridated water but the area where the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, lives may so wish. However, we may get our water from the same supply system. I do not think that the amendment addresses that issue. I should be grateful for some guidance on that matter. I have read the amendment carefully. Unless I have missed something, I cannot see how one can supply one area with fluoridated water but not another if they share the same supply. That is a practical problem.
	I hope the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will explain how, if an area decides to cease having fluoridated water, the system will cope with that and whether the Government think that it is possible to achieve that situation. My noble friend Lady Gardner said that she did not wish those areas that already have fluoridated water even to have the option of voting.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: No, I am sorry, that was not so. I consider that they should have such a right. I do not want them to have a referendum.

Baroness Byford: I shall come to that. I apologise to my noble friend if I misunderstood her. It seems unfair that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. I think that all of us in this House feel that there should be a fair deal for those people in deciding this issue.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may intervene. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that Birmingham, for instance, despite the fact that 40 years ago a proper process was gone through by the public authorities, should be forced into another consultation now on whether fluoridation should continue?

Baroness Byford: No, I was not suggesting that. But my noble friend stressed the fact—if I get it right this time—that she felt that a referendum should not be required. I think it was partly a matter of cost or because fluoridation is believed to be good for a particular area. That is why I raise the issue. But with places such as London, which will have several authorities within their supply system, the question is how the provision will be applied and dealt with. There may be a very easy answer. I should merely like clarification. That would be enormously helpful.
	I turn to the process. Earlier, we had a vote, which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, lost. I do not understand from the amendment exactly how the Government intend to seek and get the public view. The provision is vague. We are told that this matter can be set out in regulation. I do not know how many times I have stood at this Dispatch Box and objected to matters coming through in regulation which we cannot debate and cannot alter. I record my dismay again that here is another such occasion. Had this provision come through in a separate piece of legislation, we should not be in this position. We are in this position because the Government have tried to rush this matter and add it to this Bill. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain matters more fully.
	In another place, the Minister's colleague said:
	"We are enabling local communities to decide what they want to do on this matter".
	She went on to say:
	"I emphasise that no fluoridation scheme will take place unless there has been wide-ranging consultation in which both the proponents and opponents of fluoridation have been encouraged to participate and in which the majority of the population have indicated that they are in favour".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/03; col. 163.]
	I therefore ask again what I asked earlier. Does that mean over 50 per cent of those who vote, or 50 per cent of all those who are eligible to vote? How do the Government envisage the practicalities being engaged? It worries me that if the result is based on the kind of turnout we have seen at general elections, it will be very slight. The Government need to give thought to the point.
	When we first raised the issue, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on 22nd May in response to my letter—I am grateful for his response—said:
	"We have to consider further suitable measures to publicise and consult in order to obtain, and how best to assess, a genuinely representative response from the local population".
	I think all noble Lords would agree. What we cannot find out is how that is to be done. That is why I am pushing the Minister to go further.
	Those who have spoken share the desire to reduce tooth decay in children—I should like to place that on record—whether through fluoridated water or through encouraging people to have better dental care. I would like to have seen a provision to encourage people to use toothpaste containing fluoride, even if the water is fluoridated, because the use of a toothbrush helps to stimulate good gums. We should not lose sight of that.
	I have set out the difficulty that the Government have. I referred earlier to the survey undertaken by the Leicester Mercury. It approached our nine Members of Parliament. Four supported the Government's proposals, three were against, and two were undecided. I humbly suggest that they are reasonably well versed in this topic. But I fear that many people will not know the nuances but will merely see that there are two sides to the argument. Therefore, we need to make sure that the arguments for and against are put forward in a fair manner.
	In conclusion, the fact that the Government have brought this provision through so quickly, even before some of their own inquiries on the implications of fluoridation for health are completed, is a mistake. I take issue, as I said, with the undefined way of seeking public opinion. I take issue with the Government that they were originally not willing to put this amendment before the Committee in a proper manner. I believe that we should have choice. We all agree on the desirability of reducing tooth decay. What divides us is the method of achieving that choice.

Lord Warner: I hesitate to detain the Committee much longer on this subject, but I need to respond to one or two points. I shall deal with the subject of York later in my remarks.
	The noble Countess, Lady Mar, drew attention to some concerns about fluorosis. I commend to her again the statements on this matter in the briefing from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer. I urge other Members of the Committee who are concerned about dental decay to look at some of the statistics at the front of the briefing. It indicates, for example, that in the north of England in the school year 2001–02, 44 per cent of five year-old children had active tooth decay and each of those had on average three and a half decayed teeth. I shall not relay any more statistics.
	It is no good wishing to stop tooth decay and ignoring the evidence from the Chief Dental Officer and the Chief Medical Officer in the conclusion to their briefing:
	"From a public health perspective water fluoridation is the delivery method of choice to bring about population improvements in dental health".
	That is the nub of the issue and that is what to some extent is behind the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, did better than I could in rehearsing the history of this subject. He was supported ably by, as was described earlier, some of the West Midlands mafia. I believe that the evidence in relation to Birmingham is very powerful. My noble friend Lord King told us about the experiences of Sandwell.
	During the course of the debate, a number of questions were raised about the way that we treat water and the addition of chemicals to water. Perhaps I may pass on to the Committee the advice that I have been given. A number of chemicals used in water treatment can be toxic at high concentrations. All drinking water in England and Wales is normally disinfected by the controlled addition of low concentrations of chlorine—a highly toxic chemical.
	The water industry is used to dealing with those water treatment processes safely to ensure that dosing is strictly controlled within the target concentrations. Two chemicals used in fluoride are themselves the subject of European standards which require strict purity criteria. There are additional controls on the use of fluoridation chemicals within the code of practice, which itself will be revised. That ensures that levels of impurity and trace elements from the mineral rock used during manufacture are very low. Fluoride is effectively removed by the coagulation process, which is normally part of the water treatment process on water abstracted from rivers.
	Therefore, considerable safeguards are built into the way that we treat our water and the way that we use it. Fluoride is reduced during sewage treatment. I suggest that that limits any potential environmental impacts. I am also advised that in animals—noble Lords were concerned about this matter—there is no evidence of any effects from water with fluoride at concentration levels of up to 1.5 parts per million.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, took us on a tour of Europe. I should like to take us on a tour of the world with regard to fluoridation. Throughout the world it is estimated that about 210 million people drink artificially fluoridated water and that a further 103 million drink water whose natural fluoride levels are high enough to provide a significant degree of protection against tooth decay. Countries with fluoridation schemes include the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Ireland, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore. Many other countries have enacted the necessary legislation but have not yet introduced schemes. It is worth mentioning that the US is extending its fluoridation schemes. Therefore, we should not keep our attention only on what is happening in Europe.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked what would happen in areas within different strategic health authorities that may take a different view on the matter. I believe that the position is clear. The areas to be fluoridated will need to be identified at the beginning of the process. That will be dependent on the water treatment works that supply the area. Consultation will have to include all those who will be supplied with the fluoridated water. That could be part of a strategic health authority area or a combination of strategic health authorities. The water treatment processes occur in different parts of the country and, in many places, there would need to be a degree of consultation between different strategic health authorities.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. This is one of the problems that we are now facing. We are being asked to approve something on which, as he just said, consultation is still taking place. The Government do not really know what will happen. I may have misunderstood the situation, but we are faced with that problem tonight. That information should be before us prior to our being asked to support the amendment.

Lord Warner: I am trying to say that water treatment plants do not fit neatly into the areas of strategic health authorities. Therefore, we must have a process of consultation between different strategic health authorities where there may be a wish to have fluoridation. That will have to take place in consultation with the water authorities, companies and undertakers, which will want to be able to explain to health authorities the areas covered by their treatment plants. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that, at this late hour, the Committee is well equipped to have a debate about the precise allocation of water treatment plants in this country in relation to particular strategic health authorities.
	A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, returned to the subject of the consultation process. Yet again, I shall try to be as clear as I can. We recognise the importance of the methods used in assessing public opinion. The word "referendum" never passed my lips. We shall hold wide discussions on this method of consultation. Noble Lords asked who we would consult. The consultees would include companies which conduct public opinion surveys, the Electoral Reform Society, the Local Government Association and professional bodies concerned with public health and dentistry, among others. Therefore, we have a very good idea of the groups—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the noble Lord. Among the "others", will he include the Electoral Commission?

Lord Warner: We shall take away this issue and consider it. However, without being committed to particular forms of consultation, I am trying to explain to noble Lords that we have in mind to consult a very wide range of interests and bodies.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised the subject of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am advised that in the only case under that convention concerning fluoridation—the Swiss case—the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights considered that it did not need to consider the issue of whether interference with the right to respect for private and family life arose because any such interference would in any event be justified.
	I turn to the points that were raised in relation to the York study. I acknowledge the long and sustained interest of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, in fluoridation, and in particular the contribution that he made as a member of the advisory committee for the review conducted by the University of York. I did not mean to imply, and I do not believe that the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer meant to imply, that there were no reservations in that report. I certainly accept that the York team was critical of the quality of the research that it considered.
	As the CMO and CDO's paper indicates, the department is taking steps to strengthen the evidence base. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in its conclusions at paragraph 12.4, the York report stated that with bone fracture and cancer studies the evidence is very balanced around the no effect mark. Very few of the possible adverse effects studied appeared to show a possible effect. York found no evidence of risk to overall health from fluoridation, a view that was confirmed by the Medical Research Council when we asked it to identify what further research needs to be undertaken. The department will continue with its research—

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I wonder whether the noble Lord has read a little further on, where the York report goes to some length to say that because of the short length of the study some adverse effects may not have shown up in the long distance. I must again correct him on the no evidence point. It did not find no evidence. For the rest, I agree entirely with his analysis.

Lord Warner: The quotation came directly from the report. I did not believe that the Committee would like the whole of the report read out.
	We shall continue with our research programme, as I said, and monitor the outcome of the research conducted in other countries. That work is due for completion in the autumn, well before the Bill will have completed its passage through Parliament. We have made the regulations under which we want any new local consultations to be conducted.
	We have had a very thorough debate about this issue. In a nutshell, the amendment provides for local communities, after consultation, and after an informed discussion, to take steps to give their strategic health authorities a clear message that they want their water to be fluoridated. On the evidence that I have heard today, I do not see a case for denying those communities that choice and I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 31.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments: licensing of water suppliers etc]:

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 202, line 9, leave out paragraph 28.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 9 [Repeals]:

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 215, line 22, column 2, at end insert "Schedule 7."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as is usual with orders of this kind, copies of the Explanatory Memorandum on it are available in the Printed Paper Office.
	I draw noble Lords' attention to paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which notes that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill is not expected to receive Royal Assent before July 2003. That has changed since the laying of the memorandum. The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent before the end of this parliamentary Session, probably in November 2003.
	The instrument we are considering today is constitutional in nature. Pursuant to Section 63 of the Scotland Act, it transfers to Scottish Ministers functions that are exercisable "in or as regards Scotland", which is commonly known as executive devolution. It does not alter the legislative competence of either the UK or Scottish parliaments.
	The order will enable Scottish Ministers to authorise interception warrants in response to requests for mutual assistance on interception matters relating to serious crime in Scotland. Those authorisations would be made as a result of requests from abroad for interception on targets located in Scotland or requests from the Scottish police or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise who want to apply for interception to be conducted abroad in furtherance of an investigation being conducted In Scotland.
	The proposed transfer of functions is in line with current practice in two ways. First, as a result of a previous Section 63 order (SI2000/3253), the Scottish Ministers already sign interception warrants relating to serious crime in Scotland. Secondly, the Scottish Executive already deals with all other requests for mutual assistance in criminal matters as they relate to Scotland. The Scotland Office has worked with the Home Office and the Scottish Executive to pull the order together. Executive devolution orders are considered by both Houses of Parliament, using the affirmative procedure, and are also scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. All parties have agreed the text and policy effects of the order.
	Noble Lords have in the past found it useful to be told the particular sections of the Scotland Act being used to make subordinate legislation. Section 63 confers a power on Her Majesty to provide by Order in Council for any statutory or non-statutory function of a UK Minister of the Crown, so far as they are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers, either instead of, or concurrently with, the UK Minister of the Crown. It also allows functions to be carried out by a Minister of the Crown with the agreement of or after consultation with the Scottish Ministers. In that instance, the Scottish Ministers will exercise the functions instead of the Minister of the Crown.
	Article 2 of, and Schedule 1 to, the order set out the extent to which the functions concerned are to be regarded as affecting Scotland for the purposes of the order. That procedure is provided for in Section 30(3) of the Scotland Act 1998 and is commonly known as a paving provision.
	Under Section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), the order then transfers certain functions relating to international mutual assistance. In practical terms, Article 3 of and Schedule 2 to the draft order transfer functions in relation to the issue of interception warrants pursuant to Section 5(1)(b) and (c) of RIPA. Those functions will be exercisable in or as regards Scotland for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime or, in equivalent circumstances, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of any international mutual assistance agreement.
	Under Section 5(1)(b), Scottish Ministers will be able to issue a warrant authorising the Scottish police or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to request interception to be conducted abroad in furtherance of an investigation being conducted in Scotland.
	Under Section 5(1)(c), Scottish Ministers will be able to issue warrants authorising interception on targets located in Scotland in response to requests from abroad. Warrants under either Section 5(1)(b) or Section 5(1)(c) can be issued only in accordance with an international mutual assistance agreement designated under RIPA.
	In the first instance, that will be the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, so requests under Section 5(1)(b) will be for interception in other EU member states and requests under Section 5(1)(c) will be requests for interception in Scotland by EU law enforcement agencies.
	The Explanatory Memorandum clearly explains the convention, which, in short, concerns the improvement of judicial co-operation by updating the existing provisions governing mutual assistance—for example, those included in the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959. The purpose of today's order is to assist in that improvement.
	Noble Lords will also have noted in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, currently going through Parliament, will implement those provisions of the convention not already in legislation.
	Supplementary functions under Sections 9, 10 and 15 of RIPA are also being transferred to Scottish Ministers by this order. They concern the ongoing administration of the functions being transferred under Section 5 of RIPA; for example, the duration, cancellation and renewal of warrants, the modification of warrants, and general safeguards on restrictions on the use of intercepted material.
	Enabling Scottish Ministers to deal with requests for mutual assistance in interception matters as they relate to Scotland would, therefore, be entirely consistent with existing practice and the spirit of the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention. It is worth noting also that no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared in relation to this instrument as it will have no significant regulatory impact on society, industry or local government. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I can see that one will have to read the Minister's speech with some care, given the technical detail involved. In the meantime, I wish to make a few comments about the statutory instrument as we see it at present. Perhaps the Minister will forgive me if some of my remarks come from a lack of understanding of all the detail that he gave. At the same time, I did my best to understand what he was talking about.
	As a descendant of the President of the Privy Council of Scotland in 1706 who helped to negotiate the Act of Union so that it ensured the continuation of the Scottish legal system, it gives me considerable pleasure to see Scottish Ministers given power to work through the courts on matters such as the regulation of investigatory powers. However, we are in a rather grey area. Much of the electronic communication that will be investigated is a UK-wide network.
	One of the aspects that interests me is that, if an authority in Europe wishes to pursue an investigation, it may not be able to identify the part of the United Kingdom in which it needs to track down the information that it seeks. If the first request comes to the UK Government, will the authority then be asked to make a separate request to the Scottish Government if it turns out that the information that it wants is located in Scotland? Alternatively, will the permission given by the UK Minister suffice in that inquiry? The other interesting thing might be that, if that European government was turned down by the UK Government, what would happen if they then went to the Scottish Government who approved the investigation that they wished to have carried out? Presumably, electronically, the Scottish Government could inquire into a UK electronic network as easily under a Scottish warrant as under an English one.
	I would like to ask the Minister about something that I could not find easily. How do the Government propose to regulate that the power to grant these warrants is not left open to people acting from too wide a spectrum of authorities, some of which might trigger an appeal under the EU declaration of human rights? At the moment, we are only allocating this power to Scottish Ministers. Do we have any idea how many Scottish Ministers are likely to act in this regard?
	I have a series of questions to put to the Minister to see whether they trigger some kind of answer. Will Scottish Ministers be able to have a direct personal input into how the provisions in the EU legal assistance convention are implemented in Scotland?
	Which law enforcement agencies in other EU member states have been designated, under the legal assistance convention, as competent to issue requests for interception? For example, will Europol or any other EU-level institution be empowered to make requests to Scottish Ministers for interception requests under this order?
	The Minister mentioned that Scottish police would be able to make requests for interception in other EU member states. Would that require approval from the relevant Scottish Minister or would it be done through the UK Minister?
	What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of enabling Scottish Ministers to participate in requests for interception in other states under this mutual assistance convention?
	I listened to some of the debate in another place and an interesting question arose relating to whether Members of the other place, who are continually being told that they may not deal with devolved matters—and so with Scottish Ministers—would be able to question Scottish Ministers who sign such a warrant if it affects one of their constituents. Perhaps the matter would be taken up with a Member of the other place and the constituent would be looking for some investigation to be made.
	To cast the net a little wider as we tease out the workings of the devolution settlement, considering that the fundamental requirement that has triggered this legislation is the European mutual assistance convention, if a similar EU requirement arose and the Government at Westminster proposed a transfer of functions order which the Scottish Minister refused to accept—perhaps on the grounds of cost or principle—what would be the correct procedure to be followed?

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, like the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, many of whose remarks I agree with, I also pray in aid a predecessor who signed the Union and secured the continuation of the Scottish legal system. That same ancestor then spent the winter of 1706 and the spring of 1707 persuading the Scottish Parliament to go along with his idea.
	I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. The Explanatory Memorandum is helpful, his description even better and the explanatory notes wonderful, although I do not know what they are about. We have certainly progressed further tonight than we would have done had we been confined to the explanatory notes.
	We can support the order, first, because it is devolutionary in trend, even though it is only executive devolution. Pre-devolution, such functions would naturally have gone to the Secretary of State for Scotland, so there is nothing revolutionary about that part of the devolution procedure. We like the order because it tends towards international co-operation. It removes some overseas hiding places for Scottish criminals and prevents Scotland from becoming a hiding place for other people's criminals. The order seems to extend what is already happening and would have happened anyway pre-devolution. I consider it to be, as much as anything, a legislative tidying-up exercise, but I see from the noble Lord's explanation that it is a slight expansion of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
	The noble Duke raised an interesting question about such a type A procedure order. I would like to believe that the order has three-way scrutiny—in both Houses of this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament. I suppose that any of those Houses could strike it down, if it wished. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can say anything further about that.
	Finally, as we are dealing with the Scotland Act 1998, I have seen much comment about another aspect of the Act—what we know as the West Lothian question—and the fact that last night's majority of 35 was made up with 40 Scottish MPs. In some ways, I understand why people would complain about that, but I also remind myself of the previous 292 years.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, started his interesting speech by saying that he did not understand the order and wished to read it again. He then asked a series of questions that suggested that he understood the order only too well. On several of the technical questions that the noble Duke asked, I shall have to write to him.
	We must consider the order in context, and the context is that the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states was signed by EU Ministers on 29th May, 2000. The convention is intended to improve co-operation against serious and organised crime by improving procedures for mutual legal assistance. The convention will enter into force in countries that have ratified it 90 days after the eighth member state has done so. The UK hopes to ratify the convention by the end of the year. That is why we are here, and it is in that context that we introduce the order.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked what would happen if Ministers disagreed with future proposals for transferring functions. A further transfer of functions would not take place if Scottish Ministers disagreed. Agreement is needed by the Government and Scottish Ministers before a Section 63 order can be laid.
	The noble Duke asked about difficulties with tracking targets. If the target is initially located in Scotland and then moves to another part of the UK, the warrant and, thus, the process of interception would continue. There would not be a boundary problem. Which Scottish Ministers will issue warrants? The term "Scottish Ministers" is generic. It could be any Scottish Minister.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I understand that the warrant will be processed, perhaps, through a Scottish court. The powers of a Scottish court do not extend to England. It is a slight puzzle. If the target moved, what would happen? If the warrant depended on the powers of the Scottish court, it would expire at the Border.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I can speculate that the answer is that the United Kingdom is joining the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It is a UK matter. If, for example, a criminal from France were to come to Scotland, it would be inconceivable, under a convention such as this, that if he moved over the Border to England he could not be pursued with the same warrant, because we, the UK, have acceded to the EU convention?
	As I said, there are a number of questions posed by the noble Lord on which I shall have to write to him. I have just heard that the warrants are not issued by courts but by the administrative regime set out in RIPA. The noble Duke asked about the functions conferred and the benefits of doing that. The Scottish Executive already deals with other requests of mutual assistance in criminal matters as they relate to Scotland. In addition, as a result of a previous order—the Scotland Act 1998—the Scottish Ministers already have the power to authorise domestic interception warrants relating to serious crime in Scotland. Enabling the Scottish Ministers to deal with requests for mutual assistance in interception matters as they relate to Scotland would be entirely consistent with both existing practice and the spirit of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which is likely to be the first international agreement relating to the provision of assistance in interception matters to be designated.
	To return to the order, the noble Duke asked about restrictions and safeguards. Although I do not have the details, under Section 5 of RIPA there will be general safeguards on restrictions on use of intercepted material. I am grateful to the—

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. The noble Lord was talking about safeguards. One can accept that the transfer of functions of RIPA to Scotland—so that goes ahead. But oversight and scrutiny of the regime, particularly where there is no judicial process involved, belongs, I understand, to the Information Commissioner. Therefore, how on earth is the Information Commissioner to have jurisdiction over a devolved matter?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that is a question on which I shall have to write to the noble Earl. Every time the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asks me a question, whatever the context, I regret that I always have to say that I shall write to him. I apologise for that. One day I might be able to give the noble Earl a direct answer.
	I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie for his supportive statements on the order. He asked what would happen if one House were to strike down the instrument. The order would not go to the Privy Council and would fall. I commend the order again to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Taxation (Information) Bill [HL]

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a great privilege to introduce this Bill to your Lordships' House. I begin by expressing my gratitude to the usual channels for arranging time for the Bill, in particular to the Minister because I know that this was an inconvenient time for him. I should also like to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and to my right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor for their support. I should particularly like to thank Dr Peter Warburton—my co-author on many pamphlets and works for the Centre for Policy Studies—for the academic underpinning of the Bill, and also Tessa Keswick, the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, for the long commitment of that body to this programme over many years. I should also say how much I have leant on the Adam Smith Institute for the development of this concept.
	The purpose of the Bill is transparency. There are now over 250 tax allowances, tax reliefs, tax exemptions, tax credits, tax tapers, tax indexations, tax disregards and so on. This complex system allows governments too much scope for invisible tax increases. The old measure of taxation, the basic rate of income tax, has been overtaken by the era of "stealth" taxes. A simple yardstick of taxation is required to focus attention on the true level of tax paid.
	In 2003, the tax burden is expected to reach £414 billion, which is 42 per cent of net national income. On this calculation, people work for the Government for 42 per cent of the year; that is, until 2nd June. So 2nd June was independence day, the first day this year when people were not working for the Government and started working for themselves and their families. Next year, that day will be 5th June. Six years ago, independence day arrived in May. Forty years ago, it came in April.
	If the Bill becomes law, its three clauses will apply. Under Clause 1, the Office for National Statistics will calculate the date. Clause 2 requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce the date in his annual Budget Statement. Clause 3 makes the day an annual national bank holiday. In this way the Bill takes an obscure table from page 260 in the Budget Red Book, holds it up to the light and puts it in everyone's diary. In this way it can help to simplify the system because it will reduce the scope to hide complicated tax increases in the small print.
	There was a time when the public could look to the standard rate of income tax as the yardstick of whether their taxes were going up or down, but that was before the Treasury perfected its skill in cutting visible taxes on voters while raising invisible taxes elsewhere. The complications in the tax system resulting from that strategy are mind-boggling. The latest Pre-Budget Report ran to 225 pages, plus a further 323 pages in Treasury supporting documents. The Finance Bill that we examined last week ran to 459 pages and 214 clauses, taking existing tax legislation to over 7,000 pages, standing more than one foot high.
	In five years the number of basic tax rates has doubled, from 15 to 38, and Tolley's Collection of Tax Manuals, which I am told is the guide to the tax system for accounting professionals, has increased from 2,529 pages to 3,293 pages and is now bigger than all the London telephone directories put together.
	The charm of such a complicated tax system from any Chancellor's point of view is the scope it allows for hidden tax increases via reduced allowances. Under this structure, the Chancellor can increase the tax burden without ever announcing a tax rise. People simply wake up one day and find that they are in a higher tax bracket—oh, what a tangled web it is.
	This may not be an accident. The present system enabled the Chancellor, in a recent Budget Statement, to claim:
	"The direct tax burden for the average family falls [to] the lowest level for 30 years".
	That statement, exploiting the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, took full advantage of the complexity of the system and the innocence of the people.
	The case for this Bill was made very clearly in a recent exchange at Question Time in your Lordships' House. Behind me one of my noble friends, by way of criticism of the Government, said that, since the Government came to power, taxes had risen by a figure in the order of £118 billion. By way of defence, the Minister responded by describing the fall in the direct tax burden on the average family. Again from behind me by way of criticism, one of my noble friends asked if the figures concerning the direct tax burden did or did not include national insurance. In the meantime I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that he hoped that one day we could have a sensible debate about tax policy.
	Such a debate is not possible when the system enables conflicting claims and statements to be made about tax levels from different sides of the political divide. In the mean time, the people at large are like the occupants of Plato's cave; they see what they think are true objects but in fact they are seeing only the shadows cast by the objects. No citizen, however intelligent—not even the distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, where there is so much expertise in this matter—can match the massed ranks of No. 10, No. 11 and the Treasury—one man against the legions of Rome.
	My final point is addressed, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the Minister. The Bill is not an attack on the Government—not because they do not deserve it and not because they do not present an easy target—it is politically neutral. Both sides of the debate can argue their case for lower or higher taxes; for an earlier or later date. Any political party can argue that it has good causes in mind for which it proposes more tax and, therefore, a later date. Or the reverse: that it has plans for change which will reduce tax and make the date earlier. Either way, the public will have a simple benchmark by which to measure the effects of their proposals. The result will be a dramatically more open system understood by all.
	In an interview, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said:
	"We are put on this earth to change things, aren't we?"
	He is right. Something has changed. The tax system has become more complicated and the Treasury has perfected its techniques of invisible tax raising.
	In response, Parliament has to change things too. We have to carry the torch for transparency, openness and simplicity. The Bill does that. Independence day will be a benchmark symbol. It will clearly reveal the direction of change and the pace of change in taxation so that people will be able always to assess whether we are going forwards or backwards.
	We live in a democracy of information. The old "need to know" has been replaced by the "right to know". But knowledge of our tax system has not kept pace with this change. The least people should expect is clear information in a form they can understand. The Bill gives them that. It pays people the compliment of assuming that they are busy and have other things on their mind, so it provides them with a precis of the system—a modern form of good manners. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Saatchi.)

Lord Vinson: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to support this timely and potentially immensely important Bill and I join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on introducing it.
	The attractiveness of the Bill is that it would help make all the talk we hear about prudence, openness and transparency a reality—a point already well made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I find it difficult to see why anyone should object to it, except perhaps those who are anxious to avoid public criticism over excess expenditure and like to play down the level of confiscation of the nation's wealth taken by tax. As the late Keith Joseph all too clearly said:
	"Governments do not have any money, they can only spend other people's money".
	Governments are trying to do too much. If you look round the world it is the lightly taxed, lower-regulated economies with clear property rights and the freedom to trade with sound money under the rule of law that are the ones prospering mightily. Every study shows that the higher the level of tax and the higher the level of government regulation, much of it of dubious necessity, the lower the level of economic activity. Tax freedom day—or tax independence day, an expression that is rather more succinct—would, by changing the public's perception and increasing their understanding of the nature and scale of taxation, bring indirect pressures to bear to reduce its damaging level and to simplify its existing framework.
	Tax freedom day in the USA comes only some four months into the year and thereafter you get the benefit of working for yourself for the remaining eight months. In this country, in round terms, you work for five months for yourself and seven months for the Government. In the light of this, it is difficult to see the attractions of the EU economy, where you work for six months for yourself and six months for the government. Even so, the level of taxation in this country is too high and the Government are spending too much of other people's money.
	Such is the regressive nature of taxation today that those in retirement, even with modest savings, are still caught by the tax net, whereas their neighbour, who never saved a penny throughout his or her life, is on full social security, often coupled with generous housing allowances. Our present taxation system is a positive discrimination against the saver and those who practice some degree of thrift throughout their working lives. It discourages self-reliance and greatly offends many of our citizens who deeply resent the indignity of being means tested in their old age.
	The Financial Services Authority has yet to regard as erroneous the only advice that one can currently give to the lower paid, which is "Don't bother to save". The incidence of tax falls far too low on the scale of earnings and is deeply damaging to our economy and attitudes to work and savings.
	Mr Peter Hain, the ever-populist politician, may give the impression that if only the rich were taxed harder this could all be put right by transferring their ill-gotten gains to the poor. But he knows, as anyone who has studied the subject knows, that when you slice the top off the national earnings pyramid, it gives precious little to distribute to the base. The culprit is excessive government expenditure. The bigger it gets, the more inefficient it becomes. Much of the Government's time is spent transferring taxation from one pocket and putting it back with allowances in the other. The Treasury's own figures indicate that this transfer alone costs each taxpayer some £350 a year in administration costs.
	All this is the consequence of governments—and I say governments—trying to do too much, meddling and fiddling in every corner of the economy. Instead of devising more ingenious but complex welfare benefits, they should raise thresholds so that only the middle and upper earners pay income tax, as was the rule in days gone by. But, sadly, the Government are unable to do this as, at current expenditure levels, a high universal rate of tax is inescapable.
	I am privileged to be a Member of this House's Select Committee on Economic Affairs. I hope we have made some contribution to the economic debate, but membership of that committee certainly reinforces my view that excessive government at every level has led to massive complexity, not only in the benefits system but at every level of government interest. One has only to try to read the Finance Act to begin to believe that our civilisation is going daft. Even those who stand to benefit from the present complexity—those in the accountancy profession—are the first to endorse this fact. Understanding the scale of taxation would undoubtedly be helped by the concept of tax independence day as embodied in the Bill. That, in turn, would explicitly and implicitly put pressure on governments of all persuasions to be less profligate.
	Basically, democracy is about voting in and out of office those who control our taxation system. I am sure your Lordships will need no reminding that it was only 200 years ago, celebrated last week, that our American colonies declared war on us, their mother country, because they were fed up with the level of taxation. The slogan that triggered it was, "No taxation without representation". Democracy becomes a farce unless it is possible to influence, through voting, the level of taxation on one's pocket, be it at local authority elections or national ones. The scale of taxation—particularly under this Government—is beginning to cause citizens, yet again, to seethe with resentment, and the Government will, in due course, pay the penalty at the polls.
	Most of the last great areas of inefficiency and bureaucracy in this country are government-run, be they the social security system with its plethora of benefits or the shambles of an over-centralised National Health Service. One has only to read the appointments columns of the Guardian to see the nonsensical nature of much government employment and proof of the old adage that, "Where nobody owns, nobody really cares. It is not their money, so why bother? They can create another non-productive job".
	When one government department starts suing another one, it is a sure sign that bureaucracy is getting out of hand. A perfect example of this is when the Health and Safety Executive recently sued the police because a policeman, doing his job, was injured when chasing a burglar across a roof. Our most senior policemen had to spend months of their time and millions of pounds in defending this case, at the end of which the judge said that it never should have been brought in the first place. Of course, nobody suffers at the Health and Safety Executive; it is not their own money that they are wasting. It turns its back and gets on with its next empire-promoting activity. A high rate of tax is ensured by that sort of nonsense.
	Under this Government, the growth of bureaucracy and administration is mind-boggling. The system cannot work. The red tape in which the National Health Service is tied up has meant that between September 2001 and September 2002 more than 4,900 middle managers were recruited, which is ten times the number of doctors recruited over the same period. Something is wrong somewhere. Throughout the kingdom, the wealth-consuming sector of the economy is bleeding to death the wealth-creating sector of the economy. The more money that is taken from enterprising hands, the more there is to be misspent by governments.
	I am reminded of Jefferson's inaugural speech:
	"Tis a wise and frugal government which taketh not from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned".
	The market system has been described as a continuous referendum of needs and wants—people voting with their purses. Mostly the trouble is not too little government but too much. Government is not the solution; it is mainly the problem. It would indeed by better if governments tried to do less. Even the Romans 2000 years ago understood this with their expression: quis custodiet custodes?—who will judge the judges? Governments should let others do the management; they should merely set the economic and legal framework. If they did so, then tax independence day would retreat to April, where it should be.
	This House now has the powers to look at the Finance Bill. Its report on this year's Finance Bill, published recently, has been widely welcomed by the professions and the Treasury. Unfortunately, our committee did not have the time to consider capital gains tax this year, but I hope that it will do so next year. That tax is a monument to the present Chancellor's desire to change a perfectly good, rational and equitable taxation arrangement by introducing yet another targeted and stepped system. One has to ask what on earth was wrong with a tax that allowed the inherent losses caused by inflation to be deducted. Now we have substituted a system of far greater complexity, and for no good cause. What a crazy way to run a country's tax structure.
	There must be something wrong when citizens are invited to self-assess their tax but find that in many instances they are unable to do so accurately and have to seek expensive help from the accountancy profession. There again, tax independence day would lead us along the road to reform and greater simplicity.
	The economy works within a wider framework than taxation alone—one of monetary and fiscal pressures. It is well recognised that if we join the euro we will lose control of our monetary policy. We will not have a Bank of England with any meaningful task, and the good job that it has done in smoothing inflation will be handed to others who will attempt to run the European economy with a "one size fits all" interest rate which will consequently fit none. All that would be left for our Treasury would be fiscal policy, but the same checks and balances would still be useful in that event.
	I am attracted to the idea that this country should let the existing MPC metamorphose into a new FPC—Fiscal Policy Committee—along the lines of that introduced in New Zealand. That would be a similar committee of wise men and economists—yes, there is sometimes a difference—who would attempt to oversee fiscal policy in a more objective way, being one removed from the immediacy of Treasury considerations. Here again, the introduction of tax independence day would be a clear and manifest marker of the consequent levels of taxes on our economy.
	So all in all, anything that increases economic transparency, diminishes the power of governments and politicians and leaves more money in individuals' pockets, will help the economy prosper and flourish, hugely to the benefit of all its citizens. That is why the Bill is such a good idea, and I hope that it will receive the support it so justly deserves.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Vinson, I congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Saatchi for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter.
	Your Lordships may well have noted recent reports in the media about the development of the "Bullfighter" software. Tested against the Chancellor's speeches, the programme advised him to "seek help" for his "impossibly labyrinthine prose", adding:
	"You don't want the reader to understand anything you have to say. Your condition is irreversible".
	All good fun, one may think, but it does have its serious side. Straight-talking companies outperform those that communicate via what has been called a "baffling verbal fog". In respect of the management of the country's finances, many commentators have highlighted the way in which the Chancellor's penchant for complexity, his impenetrability, is corrosive to the democratic process.
	The fact is that, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi has already so eloquently explained, it is extremely difficult for members of the public to decipher the "impossibly labyrinthine prose" of the Chancellor, let alone read between the lines of the bewildering deluge of initiatives, announcements, consultations, statistics and so on that spew from the Chancellor's febrile mind. By swamping public consciousness with a quagmire of gobbledegook, so it is consigned to a blissful state of ignorance as to what is going on with the public finances. So, too, is legitimate debate about the Government's financial policies stifled.
	What better way, therefore, to address this democratic deficit—for that is what it is—than to adopt the solution offered by my noble friend's Bill? In offering a straightforward and easily understood yardstick of the standing of the nation's finances in relation to personal experience, the public are empowered to make their own decisions, approving or otherwise, about the way in which tax matters are being managed and determined in their name. Freed from the "baffling verbal fog", public trust and confidence in budgetary policy are enhanced.
	It is doubly delicious that we have the opportunity to consider this matter against the background of the recent intervention of the part-time Secretary of State for Wales. Taken at face value, his insistence that he had simply wanted to ask,
	"hard questions on the issue",
	and thereby provoke a debate is commendable. My noble friend's Bill goes to the heart of this. In any given year it would have the entirely admirable effect of promoting public debate about the issue of tax in the round. But, whatever the views of the leader of another place, it is unlikely that my noble friend will find either the Chancellor or the Prime Minister flocking to his cause.
	In that context, I was particularly struck by a remark from the Chancellor. In a recent speech to the Labour Friends of Israel, he is reported as saying:
	"The one thing I will not talk about is the subject about which so many ministers have been talking in the past week—taxation".
	It is perhaps excusable for the Chancellor to want to guard his turf from part-time trespass. But surely the mood music of his comment, in keeping with the various pronouncements from Downing Street and the Treasury in the wake of Peter Hain's intervention, is that the Government really do not want taxation matters to be talked about at all.
	Why such reticence? Are we not lambasted regularly with how successful the Chancellor's tenure at the Treasury has been? That being so, would not his record stand up to public scrutiny with ease? Or could it be that the heart of the current administration is so obsessed with presenting itself in a cuddly light to Middle England that it does not wish to give the oxygen of publicity to what Jack Straw has freely admitted is "a sensitive issue"? And no wonder. The Government are lavish in their condemnation of what they identify as 22 tax rises in the lifetime of the last Conservative administration. On the other hand, so far as I am aware, no member of the Government has yet felt disposed to admit to their 60 tax rises, identified as,
	"the biggest increases in taxation in peacetime, equivalent to an extra £44 a week being taken from every man, woman and child in Britain since Blair came to power".
	The culture of "tax-and-spend", far from being excised, continues to beat restlessly within new Labour's bosom. Indeed, in the Chancellor's hands, it has metamorphosed and broadened into a mantra of "tax-and-spend-and-tax-again". After all, there is a very real prospect that the state of the public finances will necessitate more tax rises in the near future. Indeed, is it not revealing that the possibility of further increases in national insurance has not been ruled out?
	This is not a case of concentrating on the "surface" rather than the "substance"—not, as the Secretary of State for Wales put it, an,
	"obsession with splits and process".
	At the heart of the relationship between a government's tax policy and those who pay taxes is a form of contract. In terms, the nation parts with a proportion of its earnings to enable the government of the day to provide an appropriate level and quality of services. That is the deal.
	Both in 1997 and 2001, new Labour contracted with the British public that, in return for paying taxes—whether or not more although, incidentally, Gordon Brown's tax take is double what it was in 1995—reformed and improved public services would be delivered. There may well be, as the polls have suggested in recent times, a universal willingness to espouse such a course. But, should a government seek a guarantee of popular support for it, they must offer the corresponding guarantee that the prospect of yet more taxes flooding into the maw of the Treasury will in fact deliver that improvement—that public service delivery will be energised.
	Here lies the Government's dilemma. The rhetoric is worthy and magnanimous. It resonates with the brave reforming zeal that the public both want and deserve. But it bears no relation to the way in which policy has been, and is being, implemented. Legislative provision and delivery are a timid echo of the Government's oratory.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury may maintain that:
	"Our targets are set to reform and modernize our public services".
	Would that it were so. Unfortunately, the fact is that the culture of box-ticking, target-setting, bench-marking, league tables and all the other paraphernalia of the Government's policies towards public services do not constitute reform. Even worse, despite Parliament having been told in January that only 13 per cent of the Government's targets had been missed, we are now told—as I understand it, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—that the Government have failed to achieve or been unable to evaluate more than a third. As the Sunday Telegraph put it on 6th July:
	"It now appears to be a Government target to reduce the number of Government targets",
	adding:
	"The alleged achievement of targets—re-announced and re-re-announced—has become a shoddy substitute for real change".
	Too true. This is not reform; rather it is an entrenchment of the time warp in which the public services continue to languish.
	Nor is this simply a matter of perception. In a report earlier this year the Office for National Statistics showed that almost three-quarters of the extra billions being pumped into public services, including the National Health Service, are being swallowed up by inflation-busting pay rises and ever more layers of bureaucracy. Should this sort of trend continue, it will mean that, of the £40 billion a year rise in NHS spending by 2007–08 announced by the Chancellor, only £12 billion will actually go on improving services. What of the call to arms of "Education! Education! Education!"? Perhaps, in the circumstances, "Funding crisis! Funding crisis! Funding crisis!" would be more appropriate. As revealed on the Jonathan Dimbleby programme, 90 per cent of the £2.7 billion-worth of extra funding for education has gone on salaries, pensions and national insurance contributions. I do not decry that per se, but press statements from the Department for Education stated categorically that every penny would be spent on reform.
	With examples like those populating the whole breadth of public services, taxpayers could be forgiven for supposing that their contract with the Government has been breached. Let us recall the heady days of 1997 when the Prime Minister declared in the Labour Party Manifesto:
	"We have made it our guiding rule not to promise what we cannot deliver; and to deliver what we promise".
	Bringing matters up to date, Ed Crooks, writing recently in the Financial Times, remarked, really quite generously, I think,:
	"Suspicions are growing that the government is delivering a big increase in inputs to the public services, but is achieving only a modest improvement in outputs".
	That view was endorsed by today's Populus poll in The Times.
	It needs no spark of genius to see how this relates to my noble friend's proposition. With a no-nonsense bench-mark of a government's tax take in any given year, the public would be empowered to assess for themselves the relationship between the taxes they have paid and their experience of public service delivery. Such wholesome transparency and accountability is both welcome and desirable. It would assist people like Mr Tony Seymour from Middlesex immeasurably. Scanning the letters page of The Times recently, I was struck by a telling epigram from him. Posing the question, "What's got better under Tony?", he replies, "The chance of being a higher-rate taxpayer". That says it all really.

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, I am delighted to support the Bill, introduced by my noble—and creative—friend Lord Saatchi. Like the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, I should like to congratulate him on so doing.
	I start by recognising that every government have a legitimate right to tax. They need to provide certain public services and they need to raise taxes to pay for them. People are prepared to pay tax for public services which are regarded as providing value for money. As a result, the total amount of tax raised at any time is a legitimate subject for public debate. At the same time, any government must recognise that taxation is a compulsory demand for money from people who have rightfully earned it. It is our money, and other people's money, which the Government are taking. In 2002–03, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that the total revenue raised in the UK was £407 billion—almost all of which was in tax—the equivalent of £8,700 for every adult in the UK and £6,900 for every person. But as we saw recently—as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk—even before Mr Hain gave the Aneurin Bevin lecture in Cardiff, there was a debate. Clearly, taxation is a subject about which people feel strongly, and as a result politicians have to be sensitive.
	It is against this background that the Bill can be viewed in one of two ways. Either it can be dismissed as a public relations gimmick—if it is done in that way, it would be rather self-righteous and self-serving to dismiss it—or it can be treated seriously, in a non-party way, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has said, because it raises very serious issues.
	I support the Bill for two reasons: first, simplicity and, secondly, transparency. The present tax system in the UK is hideously complex. People pay income tax, but not all income is subject to tax. Then there are allowances, reliefs, thresholds, credits and bands.
	Charitable giving can be deducted. National Insurance is compulsory, except for certain categories of self-employed. VAT can be charged at a standard rate, a reduced rate, a zero rate, and certain categories of goods are exempt. There are seven kinds of indirect tax, four kinds of taxes on capital and, in addition, taxes on corporations and council tax. I doubt whether anyone has ever calculated the precise amount of tax he or she pays each year. In fact, I even doubt whether the data are available to make such a calculation.
	I fully recognise that the Bill is not an attempt to simplify the structure of taxation. But it will force governments of all persuasions not merely to mention but to highlight the total amount of tax raised in any fiscal year, and then force them to present that fact to the electorate in a form that is readily understood. I can just imagine the Minister rising up and saying, "But the figure is there in the Red Book". Indeed it is. In a book of 293 pages, in the bottom part, on the left-hand side, of page 260, you find the table, you find the facts. In that sense, there is no duplicity. However, I believe that the reason why the figure should be given much greater emphasis is that the total amount of tax levied on an economy has an incentive effect. Paying taxes above an amount which is considered fair is a disincentive for people to work, to save and above all to undertake risk and entrepreneurial activity. But work, saving and taking risk are the drivers of wealth creation. The present Government believe that tax matters—they believe precisely that—which is why both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made such a firm commitment not to raise the top rate of income tax.
	We know from the post-war years that keeping down taxes is a constant struggle. Here, I want to emphasise once again—and would love the Minister's response to it—that this is not a party-political issue. I have to confess, with embarrassment, that taxes as a percentage of net national income were higher when Mrs Thatcher left office than when she assumed it. Since 1997, that ratio has been rising and, indeed, looks set to rise yet again, despite the fact that in 1996 Mr Blair was adamant that,
	"our proposals do not involve raising taxes".
	I believe that forcing any government of whatever political colour to announce explicitly in their annual Budget, linked to this creative idea of a national holiday, what exactly their intended burden of tax is for the next year is a wonderful way of keeping taxes from rising.
	In addition, if governments felt that the burden of taxation was likely to rise, then I believe that that in itself would be a strong incentive to introduce greater efficiency into the public sector, and so keep its costs down, or else to extend the role of the private sector in the provision of public services. Both those would have the effect of preventing the tax bill from rising, which, frankly, no government wish to go to the electorate to defend. Therefore, on grounds of simplicity, I believe that there is a strong case for supporting the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Saatchi.
	But there is a second reason for supporting the Bill, and that is on the ground of transparency. We have to accept that professional politicians are not popular with the public. Opinion polls suggest that they are not respected for their integrity. Spin is seen as part of the currency of political debate. The expression "economical with the truth" was coined by a Cabinet Secretary. The very fact that the expression "stealth taxes" has stuck speaks volumes.
	In the past, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi said in his opening speech, the major indicator of the burden of taxation was the standard rate of income tax. But, over recent years, this Government, in particular, have introduced endless new taxes—stealth taxes—discreetly, quietly and with ingenuity, but inevitably tucked away somewhere in one of the 7,000 pages of the Finance Bill.
	Perhaps the most insidious of all forms of stealth tax is the impact of rising real incomes. When, some years ago, inflation drove people into higher and higher tax bands, the bands and allowances of individual income tax were subject to statutory indexation. If inflation rose, people did not pay higher taxes simply because prices were higher. Because there is no such indexation for real income rises, the result is that in a growing economy more and more people move into higher tax brackets.
	In conclusion, I believe that the Bill is a great opportunity for honest government from all parties. It is the opportunity for everyone in this House, on all sides, to come clean with the electorate. It is an attempt to set a higher standard in public debate. For those reasons, I strongly support it.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I welcome the Taxation (Information) Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Saatchi and declare an interest as an investment fund manager. The Bill has had a good reception from the press, including the Sun.
	As stated by my noble friend and other speakers, the purpose of the Bill is tax transparency. Since 1997, the Government have made a great virtue of the fact that they have not increased the basic and higher rates of direct income tax. However, they have used all other kinds of tactics and stratagems, both direct and indirect, to increase the amounts of revenue from taxpayers, including freezing allowances, increasing national insurance contributions, taxing pension funds and withdrawing grant from local councils. That is why the phrase "stealth taxes", which has now become well known, is so apt. And, finally, the public have started to wake up to what is going on.
	What I like about the Bill is that it sets out a simple yardstick of taxation that will focus attention on the real level of tax paid. Clause 1(3) clearly declares that,
	"The burden of taxation . . . shall take into account the net receipts from—
	(a) all forms of direct taxation;
	(b) all forms of indirect taxation;
	(c) all forms of local taxation".
	Based on national figures, can the Minister say what is the actual tax rate for a basic and a higher rate taxpayer including all those areas?
	Over the past six years, independence day, the day of the year on which people stop working for the Government and start working for themselves, as calculated by the Adam Smith Institute, has moved from 26th May to 2nd June, as many speakers have mentioned. In contrast, in the US, as my noble friend Lord Vinson pointed out, the Tax Foundation found that independence day in 2001 was 3rd May, almost a month earlier.
	The Bill will require the Office for National Statistics to calculate independence day and oblige the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce it in his annual Budget day speech to Parliament. Independence day will become a benchmark symbol, as will the proposal of a national bank holiday.
	Independence day is determined by taking total tax revenue, including direct and indirect taxes, local taxes, capital taxes and national insurance contributions as a percentage of total income. Following the conventions used in the US and elsewhere it is calculated as general government tax revenue as a proportion of net national income at current market prices. All that, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths stated, is a much simpler concept than the Budget Red Book's definition of the official tax burden as "net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP".
	Independence day is a simple concept. It is a moveable feast, falling on whatever day of the year corresponds to the ratio of total tax revenues to national income. The greater the tax burden, the more days must elapse before independence day is reached. The number of days from the beginning of the year until independence day represent how much of the year the average income earner spends in financing the government budget. When independence day is reached, individuals have fulfilled their obligations to the government and for the remainder of the year enjoy full discretion over their earnings. Thus in 2003, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi stated, the tax burden is expected to reach £414 billion which is 42 per cent of the net national income. On that calculation people work for the Government for 42 per cent of the year until 2nd June. Ten years ago it fell 10 days earlier, on 23rd May. Next year, as has been stated, it will fall on 5th June. In 1963 it arrived on 23rd April.
	There is another particular need for the Bill. At one time the public could consider the standard rate of income tax as the yardstick of whether their taxes were going up or down. But that was before the Treasury honed its skill in cutting direct taxes while raising invisible taxes elsewhere. Full disclosure as in the Bill will mean that governments cannot hide from the political consequences of their overall tax actions. The scope for stealth taxes will be reduced. The hidden effects of what is known as fiscal drag will be exposed, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Griffiths.
	Fiscal drag, as has been stated, is the result of governments not increasing tax allowances in line with inflation or earnings growth, so that everyone is moved up into higher tax brackets. For example, the personal allowance is now £4,615. Over the past 50 years the threshold has dropped lower and lower in relation to average earnings. Today the primary earner in a marriage would require an allowance of £10,000 per year to enjoy the same degree of protection from tax as a married man in 1950. Meanwhile the requirement to pay tax has reached down to a very low level. Of the 3.6 million people of working age earning less than half the national average wage, virtually all of them pay tax to the Government. As my noble friend Lord Vinson stated, would it not be much simpler to raise the allowances?
	The complexity of the tax system means that political statements can be made which, though themselves true, do not portray the whole picture. As my noble friend Lord Saatchi stated, we should consider the words of the Chancellor in his recent Budget statement. He said:
	"The direct tax burden for the average family falls . . . [to] the lowest level for 30 years".
	That statement, which exploited the difference between direct and indirect taxation, took full advantage of the complexity of the tax system and the general level of public ignorance of these matters.
	The Financial Times concluded that the Chancellor,
	"had reduced Budget transparency to a new low".
	Important tax changes had been omitted from the speech. Statistics have rarely been quoted on a consistent basis. The Budget documentation has been filled with political point scoring rather than factual analysis. There has been a continued tendency to classify the collection of revenue as anything other than taxation. For example, the present system enabled the Government to misclassify tax credits as a tax reduction in the UK national accounts and reduce the official tax burden accordingly. That stratagem enabled the Government to declare that the tax burden is falling, while the Office for National Statistics, the House of Commons Library, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the OECD said that tax was rising.
	This is a most welcome Bill, which, as has been stated, is politically neutral as it obliges the Chancellor of the party in power to be more open about taxation generally. I very much welcome its introduction.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I agree with part of the aims of the Bill, but I disagree fundamentally with the means by which they are being pursued. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that coming clean with the electorate about taxation should be a government responsibility. I fear that this Bill would not force or require a government to come clean with the electorate because it deals with only one side of the equation. It talks about taxation; it says nothing about how the taxes are spent. The question for a citizen is not simply, "How much am I being taxed?" but, "What do I get for it?" If every adult is currently taxed an average £8,700 per annum, what he or she wants to know as a good consumer is, "What do I get for that £8,700 and is it value for money?"
	The Bill simply would not enable people to do that calculation in their own mind because it is completely silent on the question of public expenditure. That is why the approach that we on these Benches have been pursuing for a number of years is to send each household a citizen's tax contract each year. That would show in simple terms how much tax is being raised, what services are being delivered and what changes have been made over the previous year. It would oblige central government to provide the kind of information about expenditure and taxation which local government already sends out with council tax bills. We believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that people have a right to know how their taxes are being raised but also how they are being used and why. That would be a different approach from Clause 1 in the noble Lord's Bill.
	Clause 2 deals with the question of an additional annual holiday. I am not against holidays at all. I am very much in favour of additional annual public holidays, but perhaps I may make an alternative suggestion. My favourite candidate for an additional public holiday would be a Europe day to mark the fact that the success of the EU means that young men and women of Europe no longer face the risk of a premature death through another European civil war. That is something worth celebrating. If the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would like to come forward with a Bill to that effect, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of it.
	The problem in my mind with the current plan for a public holiday is that the underlying premise is that taxation, and therefore public expenditure, is of necessity a bad thing. It celebrates having seen off taxation for the year. The celebrations would be even greater if the day was brought forward—regardless of the consequences on the quality of public services. That is an extraordinary approach.
	I simply do not believe that the measure of a successful and civilised society is its ability constantly to reduce taxation and, with it, expenditure. I believe that it is a measure of a successful and civilised society that it provides opportunity to every citizen—for example, by providing a universal education system free in large measure; and security to every citizen, not least by having a first-class health service and police force available to everyone. Those can be provided only through general taxation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, says that once one reached independence day, people would stop working for the Government and start working for themselves and their families, and would thereby gain their independence. What he fails to realise is that it is because of the expenditure that is possible only because of taxation that many people have any independence at all. For example, it is an attendance allowance that underpins my mother's independence—to be able to stay and live at home. It is a subsidised university education which, subject to the A-level results next month, will give my son a greater degree of independence than I could provide for him.
	For many people in this country, it is the positive intervention of the state through public expenditure from which they benefit which makes their lives worth living. I do not want to appear a kill-joy, but I simply cannot support the Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on its own terms, the Bill has already been a great success. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, sought column inches—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, said, those in the Sun—and he has achieved them. I made sure that I received the relevant press cuttings in my briefing for this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has had a great triumph, on which I congratulate him sincerely.
	Having said that, it is of course not my duty to respond to the debate. Indeed, it would have been somewhat difficult for me to respond to it, because the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, began by saying that this is not a party political matter and would apply to all Chancellors. However, the contributions from his four Back-Bench colleagues were entirely attacks on the Labour Government, with a little leavening from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the Bill. Everyone else made speeches that presumably come from the Adam Smith Institute. It gave me great pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, repeat exactly the same phrases as had been delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. I therefore assume that they came from the same source.

A noble Lord: No, my Lords.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Hansard will show that the same speech was made by two Members in a single debate, which is an interesting commentary on a practice politely called in the Companion, "extended reading notes".
	Having said that, I think it my duty to say something about the Bill, although I cannot say anything about the debate. As has been said, the Government already publish estimates of the tax/GDP ratio in Budget documentation. That is the most commonly used measure of the tax burden, used by organisations such as the OECD, making international comparisons easier and bringing the UK into line with international practice.
	The publication of an additional tax burden series that was calculated as a proportion by 365th parts of net national income, rather than GDP, would simply complicate matters. In addition, the capital consumption data that feed into net national income are notoriously unreliable, making international comparisons based on net national income much more difficult. So we do what is right and the Bill suggests that we do what is wrong.
	The concept of the day on which the burden of taxation may be said to be discharged—the tax freedom day—is also debatable and hypothetical. Some unkind people would call it a gimmick. Of course, it does not represent what it claims to. Individuals and businesses do not stop paying taxes on a particular day during the year, nor do they stop using the services.
	I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was suggesting that on 3rd June, after tax freedom day, his beloved taxpayers would stop using schools, hospitals, the police service and the defence service, which are provided by their taxation. That is a totally artificial idea. It is also a bad idea because the provision of an extra holiday, particularly at a time of year when there are already many holidays, would be extremely damaging to the economy. The introduction of an extra day's holiday would result in a potential loss of output, an inevitable cost and disruption to industry, and could cost businesses up to £2 billion per year. Many employees have contractual rights to paid bank holiday leave or overtime pay for bank holidays. It would create uncertainty for business and individuals, who would not know on what date the tax freedom day would fall.
	As a generator of column inches in the press, the Bill is a triumph. As a piece of argument, it does not deserve consideration. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that a civilised society makes collective provision through collective taxation for the services that we all need and use. The Government do not seek to oppose a Private Member's Bill, nor shall we oppose the Motion for a Second Reading. However, I hope I have made it clear that we do not support the Bill.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and particularly to my noble friends Lord Vinson, Lord Northesk, Lord Griffiths and Lord Northbrook.
	My noble friend Lord Vinson said that governments try to do too much; my noble friend Lord Northesk that they are too reticent about the true cost of taxation; my noble friend Lord Griffiths that they are too willing to exploit rising real incomes; and my noble friend Lord Northbrook that they are too ready to exploit the complexity of the system. I agree with all of them.
	In presenting the Bill, I was hopeful that if its three clauses were in place and political debate were centred around this date, one of its advantages would be that it would expose the philosophical gulf between the parties. Nothing could have underlined the truth of that more than the closing remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord McIntosh.
	It is clear that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party have a completely different view of taxation and its function. They do not agree with the great founders of liberal democracy—Rousseau, Locke and Jefferson, all of whom took the view that freedom from the state was a vital aspect of civilisation.
	I am most disappointed by the Minister's reply. Had I been advising the Chancellor about the Bill, I would have taken a different line. I would have told him that one of the Government's problems seems to relate to trust. That seems to be what most of the commentators are talking about these days. Today the Government and the Chancellor had a wonderful opportunity to show that in a crucial area of British public life—that is, taxation—the Government have nothing to hide, could be trusted and were prepared to be totally open and transparent with the people. I regret that that advice was not given to the Chancellor, or, if it was, he did not take it.
	I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I urge your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
	On Question, Bill read a second time.

Water Bill [HL]

Report received in respect of fluoridation.
	Clause 102 [Interpretation, commencement, short title, and extent]:

The Countess of Mar: moved the Amendment:
	Page 123, line 4, at end insert "save that section 58A shall not come into force until the results of the research into the effects of water fluoridation, as recommended by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer, have been published"

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in moving this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Baldwin, I believe that noble Lords who were here for the Committee (on recommitment) will have heard my noble friend's very full speech on the subject of the York committee review. I understand from that review that the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer have stated that they will announce in the autumn several research projects into the effects of water fluoridation.
	Our amendment is very simple. It asks that the implementation of the amendment that we debated earlier be delayed until the results of the research are published. There is not much more that I can say. Noble Lords know of my concerns about these products. It is clear that the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer are aware that there are problems. In fact, there has already been one advertisement for a research specification on a question that we have discussed thoroughly: whether natural fluoride is the same as that which is added to our tap-water supplies, whether they are both bio-available in the same way and whether the effects are the same.
	I am very pleased that my noble friend has returned, because he knows much more about the subject than I do. I beg to move.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name. I understood that we were to resume at half-past ten, so I am not quite sure what has happened on this. But that is why I am late. I apologise for having missed my noble friend's remarks, but I will say very briefly what I was going to say.
	The reason for this is a worry about the state of the science before anything is even put to the local authorities or whoever they are going to be. The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer are currently considering what advice on research to give to government. That probably will not be until the autumn. I do hope those who favour fluoridation can accept the need for more research which the two major reports have shown, in which case I should be grateful if they would consider the contradiction there seems to be in conceding that we do not know enough about fluoride and yet allowing further schemes to go ahead.
	Basically, I do not feel that things should be even put in front of local communities until we know a great deal more about safety and efficacy. I go back to what I said earlier in the evening: do you want your policy to be based on good science or do you not?
	I have three final points just to illustrate this. Both the major reports that we have had—York and the MRC—have recommended significant research into the effects of fluoridation. That may be a surprise to some of your Lordships from the briefings, because they do not tend to appear in it, but it is the case, and it is those that the chief officers are looking at.
	The present evidence, as I think I said before, would not be good enough for even a medical drug. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who is almost in her place, it was not a question of looking for endless research. The York reviewers, who are very experienced in this game, as this is what they do—they carry out systematic reviews—found that in the case of fluoridation, it was unusually bad, both in quality and in quantity. So that is the basis on which they think there should be more research. At present, it would not underpin a normal drug.
	My third and final point, just to remind your Lordships what I said earlier, is that the present evidence of fluoride—I have this on the authority of the senior researcher at York—is actually less good than for HRT's cardio-protective effects, which turned out to be wrong.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate. Have the noble Earl and the noble Countess any idea of how long it would take for the results of research into the effects of water fluoridation to be published?

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: No, my Lords, I have not, and I do not believe that we should be influenced by that if we are serious about science and being sure of what effects it has. I do not know.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not sure how long the processes and so forth that we spoke about earlier would take, but there will be plenty of time for all that happen. In no way should we accept the amendment.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I wish to make a couple of comments on the hot copy—as I think it was described—of the amendments that have been put down by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
	I seek clarification from the Government. We had a good debate in our earlier discussions about whether the research that has been carried out to date was adequate. Several people made the point that the amount of research was not adequate, so I have some sympathy with this amendment.
	In his contribution earlier, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said that a lack of evidence was not an excuse. I accept that and think that research should be undertaken. Noble Lords know that, although I spoke to the amendment moved by the Minister earlier, my question is still whether we should push ahead or not. I hope that he agrees that getting up-to-date and accurate scientific research is in everybody's interests. I hope that, even if he cannot accept this amendment, the Minister will view it in a constructive way. There are outstanding questions relating to fluoridation and I would be grateful for some explanation.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly have sympathy with this amendment, especially with the fact that it will be difficult to conduct a proper public consultation and debate on whether people want their water to be fluoridated without receiving the evidence. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the spirit of this amendment and be as positive as they can.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I agree entirely that the research would be very helpful and we should ensure that it goes ahead. However, I am not sure that we should delay any longer, because I suspect that such research would take rather a long time to complete. Furthermore, we will never have enough research to convince everybody. That is one of the problems. The question is whether we have enough research evidence to go ahead now, and I believe that we do.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are certainly not anti-science, as I hoped I indicated in earlier stages of our debate. However, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. As I thought I had made clear earlier, we have asked the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer to consider the implications for government policy on fluoridation of the MRC report mentioned in the scientific briefing paper. In fact, on their recommendation, we have already commissioned a research study on the absorption of fluoride and expect the CMO and the CDO to recommend further research. However, there is a lot in what my noble friend Lord Turnberg has just said.
	I repeat the assurances that I have already given to the House. We will not enable strategic health authorities to engage in any consultation before we have the reports from the CMO and the CDO and the results of the research on absorption that I mentioned.
	I remind noble Lords that we cannot lay any regulations on the consultation process before the Water Bill has completed its passage in November at the earliest—and at the rate at which we are proceeding today, who knows? As I said, we expect the CMO's report and the research report on absorption by then. I hope that noble Lords will accept the assurances that I have given. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Noble Lords will know that I have every reason to be sceptical about the results of scientific reports. I have had enough experience over the past 10 years with organophosphates not to believe everything that I am told. On organophosphates, I was proved right. I sincerely hope that that is not the case with fluoride.
	In view of the assurances that the noble Lord gave me about the length of time—I hope that my noble friend will agree with me—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Water Bill [HL], have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	:TITLE3:"Water conservation
	WATER CONSERVATION DUTY FOR ALL PUBLIC BODIES
	It is the duty of—
	(a) any Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26);
	(b) any government department;
	(c) the National Assembly for Wales;
	(d) a person holding office—
	(i) under the Crown;
	(ii) created or continued in existence by a public general Act of Parliament; or
	(iii) the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament;
	(iv) a statutory undertaker (meaning the persons referred to in section 262(1), (3) and (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)); and
	(v) any other public body of any description;
	in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of furthering the conservation of water."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I note that Amendment No. 1, which would place a water conservation duty on all public bodies, has been met almost totally, I think, by the government amendment that is grouped with it, Amendment No. 41. For that, I thank the Minister warmly. I am sure that it was hard work getting the agreement of all departments to it. It fulfils Defra's role of getting sustainability throughout government departments. It furthers that purpose.
	I warmly welcome the government amendment, but I have one slight concern that, I am sure, the Minister will answer. In Amendment No. 41, what does the phrase "where relevant" mean? I presume that, wherever water is supplied, conservation will be relevant. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness said. The phrase "where relevant" relates to some of the other activities of public bodies that are not particularly relevant to the issue of resources and conservation. In all areas—administrative effort and so on—in which it is relevant, Amendment No. 41 will cover it.
	The amendment will place an obligation on all public authorities, not only in their own activities but in activities relating to other people—for example, planning, which we will come to later. The amendment meets the objectives that the noble Baroness and others identified in previous debates. I hope that, when we come to it, we will get support for Amendment No. 41.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It gives me great pleasure to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Existing impounding works]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 5, line 32, leave out "otherwise" and insert "in relation to England"

Baroness Byford: My Lords, we return to the issue that I raised earlier. The amendment was tabled to draw to the Minister's attention the statement that he made on Report, when he said:
	"while considering the totality of the territorial definitions, we have found that we may need to table our own amendments on other issues, including, for example, the fact that the Scilly Isles have been left out".—[Official Report, 12/6/03; col. 363.]
	Will the Minister tell us what is happening on that front and why there does not seem to be a relevant government amendment? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. I must hold up my hands. The discussions with the devolved administrations and others, to which I referred, on how we should put it in the Bill have not yet been completed. As the main point of the previous discussion is raised in the amendment, I am prepared to accept the amendment, on the strict understanding that we have to tidy it up in another place.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It seems such a small point, but it is important. With that assurance, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Rights to abstract small quantities]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 8, leave out lines 16 to 35.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. They all relate to the system of protected rights and are technical or consequential in nature. A protected right is a device that operates to protect existing abstractors against later licensed abstractors and is touched on in a number of other amendments. Essentially, they are clarification or consequences thereof. I shall happily respond to any questions on the individual amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) An order under subsection (1) above may include provision for or in relation to the payment by the Agency of compensation, in cases specified in the order, to a person who—
	(a) immediately before the making of an order under subsection (1) above, had been in a position to carry out an abstraction to which, by virtue of section 27(1) above, the restriction on abstraction did not apply;
	(b) following the making of that order, requires a licence under this Chapter in order to carry out that abstraction; and
	(c) has suffered loss or damage as a result of his having been—
	(i) refused such a licence in respect of that abstraction; or
	(ii) granted such a licence, but in respect of an abstraction of more limited extent than the one he had been in a position to carry out."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Rights to abstract for drainage purposes, etc]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 10, line 22, leave out from "prevent" to end of line 23 and insert "an immediate risk—
	(a) to a human being of death, personal injury or harm to health;"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5, 27 and 28 are minor technical amendments which make changes to the drafting of Clauses 9 and 29, which we signalled we would do on Report. Should any noble Lords wish to ask questions, I will of course seek to answer them. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise briefly simply to say that these amendments are welcome. They are as a result of pressure that we exerted at earlier stages. It is good to see them here. I need say no more.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we were listening. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Orders under section 33 of the WRA, etc]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
	Page 14, line 28, at end insert—
	"and references in this section (however expressed) to the revocation of an exception order are to be construed accordingly." Page 14, leave out lines 35 to 46 and insert—
	"(5) An order under this section may make provision, subject to any conditions or limitations specified in the order—
	(a) for the restriction on abstraction (and, in the case of abstractions from underground strata, the other restrictions in section 24 of the WRA) to continue not to apply to an abstraction despite the revocation of the exception order;
	(b) for a person to be taken to continue to have a right to abstract water, for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the WRA, to the same extent he was taken to do so under the exception order;
	(c) for the payment by the Agency of compensation, in cases specified in the order, to any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of the revocation of the exception order.
	(6) If an order under this section provides as mentioned in subsection (5)(a), the order must also say whether or not the exemption so provided for is to be counted cumulatively with any other exemption which a person has by virtue of section 27 or 33A of the WRA."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 15, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) In this section, "inland waters" and "underground strata" have the meanings given in section 221(1) of the WRA."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to the associated amendments. This Act is in the form of amendments to other Acts. However, Clauses 5, 6 and 12 would otherwise be freestanding as clauses of this Act—namely, the Water Act 2003. Although freestanding, it would be of benefit to treat them as if the various parts of the Water Resources Act 1991 apply to them as these clauses all relate to the functions and powers of Chapter 2 of Part II of the Water Resources Act.
	Amendments Nos. 8, 30 and 67 all have the effect of allowing appropriate provisions of that Act to be applied to these clauses. Amendment No. 68 applies the Environment Agency's general duties in the same direction. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is another series of amendments that we are glad to see. At this hour and given the exigencies we are working under, I shall say no more.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Protection from derogation]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 20, line 41, leave out from "be)" to end of line 43 and insert "section 39A(2) or (3), 48(1) or 59C(10) below or section 99(3) of the Water Act 2003, or in a provision made in an order by virtue of section 12(5)(b) of that Act, in each case subject to any limitations mentioned there"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Protected rights]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
	Page 21, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
	"(b) it is such a right as a person is taken to have by virtue of subsection (2) below;
	(ba) it is such a right as a person is taken to continue to have by virtue of subsection (3) below;" Page 21, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) it is such a right as a person is taken to continue to have by virtue of a provision made under subsection (5)(b) of section 12 of the Water Act 2003 in an order made under that section; or
	( ) it is such a right as a person is taken to continue to have by virtue of section 99(3) of that Act." Page 21, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
	"(2) A person who is in a position to carry out an abstraction of a quantity of water which—
	(a) by virtue of section 27(1) above is not subject to the restriction on abstraction; and
	(b) also falls within subsection (2B) or (2C) below,
	shall be taken, for the purposes of this Chapter, to have a right to do so in respect of that quantity or, if lower, the maximum quantity mentioned in subsection (2A) below.
	(2A) The maximum quantity is—
	(a) if, by virtue of an order under section 27A(1) above, section 27(1) has ever had effect as if it referred, for the purposes of the abstraction in question, to a quantity of water lower than twenty cubic metres, that lower quantity (or, if more than one, the lowest of them); or
	(b) in any other case, twenty cubic metres (and no more).
	(2B) An abstraction falls within this subsection if it is an abstraction from inland waters carried out by or on behalf of an occupier of land contiguous to those waters at the place where the abstraction is effected ("contiguous land"), and—
	(a) the water is abstracted for use on a holding consisting of the contiguous land with or without other land held with that land; and
	(b) it is abstracted for use on that holding for either or both of the following purposes—
	(i) the domestic purposes of the occupier's household;
	(ii) agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation.
	(2C) An abstraction falls within this subsection if it is an abstraction from underground strata and the water is abstracted by or on behalf of an individual as a supply of water for the domestic purposes of his household.
	(2D) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to a person in respect of an abstraction which that person is, or was at any time, taken to have a right to carry out by virtue of any other provision mentioned in subsection (1) above."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 18:
	Page 21, line 30, leave out "the right to abstract water which"
	Page 21, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert "and who was taken in consequence of that licence (or that part of the licence) to have a right to abstract water by virtue of section 48(1) below shall be taken to continue to have that right for the purposes of this Chapter."
	Page 21, line 39, leave out from beginning to "does" in line 42 and insert—
	"(4) For the purposes of this Chapter, the person who was the holder of the licence in question ("the old licence") shall cease to be taken to continue to have a right, by virtue of subsection (3) above, to abstract water if—
	(a) during a period mentioned in subsection 4A below he" Page 21, line 46, leave out "the holder of the old licence" and insert "he"
	Page 22, line 2, at end insert—
	"(4A) The period referred to in subsection (4)(a) above is—
	(a) four years; or
	(b) if the abstractions authorised under the old licence were abstractions planned to be carried out at intervals of more than four years, or for emergency purposes only, such longer period as the Agency may determine on the application of the holder of the old licence."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 22, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) A protected right that has been unused for four years shall not cease under subsection (4) above if the licence holder can demonstrate that his pattern of abstraction is or has been over a longer cycle."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, with apologies to the House, I shall take a little longer on this amendment. At the end of our previous debate on this matter, the Minister said that,
	"we accept the underlying general concern expressed and we wish to give further consideration to the best formulation of a suitable amendment".
	She went on to say,
	"We will therefore bring forward a suitable government amendment to cater for this situation".—[Official Report, 12/6/03; cols. 406-407.]
	Unfortunately, although I have looked, I have not managed to find that amendment.
	This is a most important issue. It relates to the needs of modern farming methods, to crop rotation patterns that extend for as long as seven years, and to the reduction in the use of plant protection chemicals and the upsurge in organic produce. The NFU is greatly concerned that an arbitrary reduction of all protected rights to a maximum of four years, if they are unused, would damage the progress of modern agriculture. The technical word used here is "phytosanitary", relating to the use of natural methods to control the damage inflicted by various pests.
	I remind the House that this Government came into power on the back of a number of mantras or oft-repeated sayings, one of which was "joined-up government". Where is the joined-up government when one part of Defra is campaigning for curbs on pesticides while those responsible for this Bill are laying down conditions which can only result in an increase in their use?
	In his letter dated 30th June, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated that over the past four years there has been only one revocation owing to non-use but that there are over 2,600 licences against which there have been no abstractions in each case over the past four years. I accept that, but I think that the figure goes some way to explain the Government's wish to reduce the compensation period from seven to four years.
	I know that the hour is late and that we have reached Third Reading, but I hope that the Government will take this amendment seriously. I beg to move.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I do so because another mantra adopted by this Government is to encourage organics and greater diversity in farm crops. Given that, flexibility is very necessary.
	One does not realise the time-scales involved in converting from working as a basic intervention-type supported crop provider to diversification into horticulture and other forms of organic production. It is very important that this should be taken into account.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment. It is extremely important to provide flexibility. Not to allow for such flexibility by restricting the four-year rule here is truly unimaginative, not least because it flies in the face of the need for environmental sustainability. Those of us who have been intimately involved in farming over the years know that sound farming practice, in particular the control of pests and weeds in environmentally friendly ways, often depends on longer rotations than four years. It also means that the crop itself will give a better yield over the longer period as well as breaking the cycle of pest infestations.
	So there are many reasons why the Government should accept what is in my view a very reasonable amendment. It would boost their credibility in terms of their sensitivity towards environmental sustainability and it would enlighten those away from this House that they understand the meaning of what is sound farming practice.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I support the amendment on the basis that the issue in principle applies also with the mutatis mutandis to the quarrying industry. I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of Quarry Products Association.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps I may illustrate the depth of the problem. I used to be a potato grower; I am not any longer. One of the reasons I am not is because I had an outbreak of potato eel worm on my farm. The isolation period before you can grow potatoes again, if you ever want to export potatoes, is 10 years for that particular crop. There is not a crop of potatoes in this country now that is not grown without irrigation. If you have an outbreak of eel worm you may well be unable to grow potatoes on your ground for 10 years. That is a farming fact of life that illustrates in a classic way the need for the amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this part of the Bill deals with protected rights rather than with abstraction licences. It is therefore a question of whether you can remove the protected right, which will accrue only to old licence holders.
	We believe that we have dealt with the problem to which noble Lords have referred. The grouping of the amendments may be slightly odd in this respect. Amendment No. 18, which we have just passed, and Amendment No. 16, to which we have yet to come, deal with a situation which provides for exceptions,
	"if the abstractions authorised under the old licence were abstractions planned to be carried out at intervals of more than four years"—
	for example, the rotation system—
	"or for emergency purposes only, such longer period as the Agency may determine on the application of the holder of the old licence".
	Therefore, in the previous position where the protected right related to rotation or similar interval usage, the clause could provide for a longer period than four years. Amendments Nos. 18 and 16, to a large extent, already meet the situation which is of concern to noble Lords.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister's response. His phraseology—I shall check in Hansard tomorrow—was "may deliver". The amendment requires that it "shall not cease under subsection (4)". I am not satisfied. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, what I said, which is the phraseology of the amendment, is that:
	"if the abstractions authorised under the old licence were abstractions planned to be carried out at intervals of more than four years, or for emergency purposes only, such longer period as the Agency may determine on the application of the holder of the old licence".
	So it is decided on the basis of the application for a period for longer than four years.
	We should bear in mind that we are not talking about abstraction rights but about protected rights and preserving the position of the protected rights of existing licence holders. We are not talking about the licensing system.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I know that it is late but I cannot see how the issue we have raised is covered in the amendments to which the Minister referred. I am quite happy to give him a second chance to respond—I know that it is not normal—but, if he does not wish to, I shall beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 63.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 21 [Form, contents and effect of licences]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 23, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—
	"(2A) For the purposes of section 61(4A) below—
	(a) every full licence under this Chapter which is for a term exceeding twelve years shall; and
	(b) any transfer licence under this Chapter which is for a term exceeding twelve years may,
	specify a minimum value for the quantity referred to in subsection (2)(a) above."

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 makes minor changes to the drafting of Clause 21. The changes specify that the provisions relate only to licences of a term exceeding 12 years. The reason for the change is to make clear that there is no need for additional bureaucratic steps in a situation where the provisions to which the clause relates cannot apply. The clause relates to the occasions under Clause 27(3) when the volume of water set in a licence can be reduced without compensation. The safeguards in that clause ensure that that cannot apply to licences of a duration of less than 12 years.
	Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 make minor technical changes to the drafting of Clause 23. Amendment No. 24 removes the power of the Secretary of State in new Section 51(1D) of the Water Resources Act 1991 to make regulations as to the grounds of appeal against an Environment Agency decision relating to the revocation of an impounding licence. Such provision is unnecessary because the grounds for appeal are already set out in new Section 51(1C).
	Amendment No. 25 is consequential on that change, making it clear that the regulations governing how a notice may be served apply to the notice served upon the Secretary of State under new Section 51(1C). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"RENEWAL OF LICENCES
	After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—
	"46ZA RENEWAL OF LICENCES
	(1) Licence renewal will be subject to three tests, namely that—
	(a) environmental sustainability must not be in question;
	(b) the need for the licence is demonstrable;
	(c) the water extracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently and effectively.
	(2) If the conditions of subsection (1) above are met, the regulator may negotiate changes to the licence but will not normally refuse renewal.""

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this amendment is slightly different from the one presented on Report. We have lost count of the representations we have received on the subject of licence renewal. The issue is causing great concern to many people and businesses. The Minister is most reassuring on the subject, and we are reassured, but his words are not a satisfactory replacement for print on the face of the Bill. It may sound odd, but this Bill may have to last for 20 or 30 years. It seems wrong to ignore the possibility that the concept of an unwritten presumption of renewal will be lost in those years. Every industry that abstracts or impounds water has a vital concern in this issue. We must not let it go by default. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, during the Bill's passage noble Lords opposite have persistently but with moderation sought an amendment of this kind. I myself have occasionally intervened because I thought that water companies expending considerable sums on structural change need some sort of reassurance about the future extension or renewal of the licence. Noble Lords opposite have again put forward an amendment with moderation. The use of the word "normally" in the penultimate line is particularly moderate. I hope that the Government will look kindly on the amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that we cannot look on it that kindly. The current and future operational policy of the Government and the Environment Agency have been made clear. However, there are at least two serious problems about stating that on the face of the Bill, even in what I recognise is a very moderate and flexible amendment. First, it is difficult to anticipate in sufficient detail, and sufficiently narrowly, the circumstances for the presumption. In practice, therefore, it will fall to the agency to set out its judgment. We need to preserve that flexibility.
	Secondly, and in a sense more importantly for primary legislation, the practical effect of the proposal could be to favour the position of existing abstractors at the expense of new ones, or indeed of the environment. Any reduced flexibility in interpretation is likely to make it more difficult, for example, to negotiate with an existing licence holder on his future needs under the most efficient conditions of use and thereby possibly to reduce his level of abstraction. That might of itself preclude another licence being granted or make it more difficult to secure environmental improvements. The provision therefore gives rise to questions of both equity and the environmental effect which need to be taken into account.
	This is a matter for clear policy guidelines. We are therefore prepared to issue a direction to the Environment Agency wherever clarification is required as to the importance of this operational policy. That should give us the scope to frame an appropriate set of circumstances for non-renewal while allowing us sufficient flexibility to cope with future uncertainties. That takes us a step further in relation to what the noble Baroness seeks in the amendment. However, the restrictions implied in including the measure on the face of the Bill in these terms are not acceptable to the Government.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, that has disappointed me. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his support. We have tried to come up with a measure that is shorter, simpler and relevant. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have not managed to meet us along the way. The Minister said that the Government would introduce guidelines. That brings me back to square one. I keep saying from this Dispatch Box that when we are taking forward legislation that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years it is not acceptable that so many provisions are put into guidelines or regulations over which this House has no control at all.
	I repeat that I object to the way in which this Bill is being dealt with. I suspect that the Minister will not be surprised by my comments. Having noted on the recent Division that the Government have many supporters I shall not divide the House, but I urge the Government to think seriously about the matter. I hope that it will be raised in greater detail in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: moved Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES
	After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—
	"46B COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES
	(1) A licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—
	(a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or
	(b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ("de-watering abstractions");
	shall be stated to take effect and to expire simultaneously with any planning permission or any extension or amendment to any planning permission granted for such mining, quarrying or engineering operations instead of a specific date, or dates, in the licence for the de-watering abstraction itself.
	(2) In all other respects, reference in this Chapter to the date on which a licence is stated to take effect and on which it expires, insofar as a licence for de-watering abstractions is concerned, refers to the commencement and expiry dates comprised in any planning permission authorising the mining, quarrying or engineering operations relevant to the de-watering abstraction.""

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, the issue at stake was well rehearsed at earlier stages of the Bill and I do not propose to repeat all the arguments. I simply remind your Lordships that it concerns bringing together the length of a licence and length of planning permission to allow sensible investment plans to be drawn up by quarrying companies. As I indicated on the previous occasion, the investment involved is very significant indeed.
	I add only one argument in response to a question asked by the Minister, I believe in Committee. The Minister asked about the extent of the Bill's effect on the quarrying industry if it were to go through in its current form. I can now provide some figures in that regard. I stand by these figures, which are conservative rather than optimistic. If the Bill goes through in its current form, 176 quarries will be affected after 2011. After 2017, at least 130 quarries will be affected. In terms of tonnage that will effectively sterilise, after 2011, between 1.5 billion and 2 billion tonnes of aggregate. That is a very large figure—the average annual turnover is 200 million tonnes—and is the equivalent of eight to 10 years' supply of aggregate. That is the tonnage that will be directly affected by the Bill if it is passed in its current form.
	I remind the House that as recently as yesterday the Secretary of State for Transport issued a Statement on additional road building. Yesterday at a meeting of the Association of Parliamentary Environment Groups the relevant Minister told that gathering that the Thames Gateway was the largest brownfield building site in Europe and would require very significant infrastructure. I leave with the Minister the question of how that can be dealt with in the form of joined-up government and others bringing to fruition those fine plans if the quarrying industry finds itself with eight to 10 years' sterilisation of its assets. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I support the amendment. The quarrying industry is not a consumer of water in the conventional sense. It may have to take water from one place and put it somewhere else. While it is possible that a subterranean source of water downstream is diminished, there is an equivalent increase in a surface source of water as a result of those operations. The idea that the industry, which is the foundation, if I may put it that way—it is almost a horrible pun—of the construction industry in this country, might be vulnerable is not a tolerable one. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding why the Government cannot make a particular exception for this rather significant, indeed vitally important industry.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I recognise that quarrying is a very important industry. Nevertheless, while it may not be a consumer of water it is a user of water. The Bill attempts to create, so far as possible, a level playing field for all users of water. For that reason, I do not feel inclined to support the amendment. I realise the enormity of the figures that the noble Lord has just given.
	Secondly, I still have concerns that this amendment pushes the minerals planning authority into being a kind of de facto extraction licensing authority at the same time. I know from first-hand experience how difficult it is dealing merely with planning permissions and all the associated issues. The planning authority must rightly depend on the advice of the Environment Agency. I believe, therefore, that the responsibility for granting an extraction licence rightly rests with the Environment Agency. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. I must declare an interest. There are seven quarries in the area that I used to represent. There are, to my knowledge, 250 jobs involved. That is typical of remote areas where there is no other form of employment.
	I sympathise with my noble friend's point that the planning situation is complicated by this water issue. There is obviously a need for contiguous planning and de-watering arrangements to be made. But that ought to be the subject of new minerals planning guidance for planning authorities. A framework for that could be found within this amendment and could be introduced to give guidance to planning authorities to bring about an equitable solution which would meet all the complex needs of the quarrying industry and those of the environment and provide a logical and ordered way of ensuring that the situation is under proper control.
	I very much recognise the importance of this industry. I also see a need for straightening out some of the planning laws to ensure that some of the things that do go on—for example, starting up old planning permissions from a very long time ago—are sorted out. If all of that can be done with a new minerals planning guidance, it ought to be possible to satisfy most people on this point.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I should like to register my interest as a member of Somerset County Council, which is a minerals planning authority.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, we have been over this ground a number of times, both in Grand Committee and on Report. The amendment points to a great weakness in the Bill. As I have said previously, and as was said by the noble Baroness on the Liberal Front Bench, there is a difference between consumers of water and users of water. The underlying strategy of the Bill is to treat them as though they are the same, and to apply the same restrictions to them. A consumer of water is one thing; a user of water is something entirely different.
	The amendments that we have put forward in relation not only to quarries but also to deep excavations in the construction industry and civil engineering world—a similar kind of activity—have dealt with the idea that, instead of taking the water away, using it and throwing it into the Atlantic Ocean or some such place, it is drained and then is put back more or less where it was before. One can never put it exactly where it was before but fairly close to where it was before.
	There is one issue I should draw to the attention of the House. Since we last discussed these matters, the quarry industry has taken a number of officials to view quarries in order to see what happens there, what they are like and how the water is drained—perhaps gathered in a lagoon or a pool of some kind—and then restored. I am not sure whether those officials have ever seen a quarry before. They have now, and I am sure that their eyes have been opened and that they can see the distinction between the use and the consumption of water.
	Finally, I want to reinforce the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. I declare an interest in that I am a civil engineer. I worry about these things. I am happy to say that apparently the Government are embarking on a considerable programme of road and housing extensions, all of which are absolutely necessary and all of which are utterly dependent on the quarry industry—whether it be for stone, gravel, sand or lime. It would be a grave error on the part of the Government to place burdens on the quarry industry which would jeopardise the effort that must be made by the construction industry to meet the demands that the Government themselves are making. I support my noble friend wholly and entirely.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I shall not repeat what I said on Report. As my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, the companies which have invested in quarries have probably invested millions of pounds, sometimes as a result of long planning permissions. They make their calculations, do a little work each week and each month and plan in considerable detail. Taking into account the associated costs, they calculate that they can make some money and supply all the aggregates that noble Lords have said are necessary.
	The Government may then come along and say, "We're sorry. You will have to pay more or get rid of the water in a different way". However, unless the Government agree to pay compensation, surely that is a kind of retrospective legislation which I thought we did not have in this country. That is obviously acceptable with regard to new permissions and new licences, but such companies obtained permissions five, 10, 15 or 20 years ago in the expectation of carrying on a business in a certain way. If that changes due to subsequent legislation, surely it behoves us to ensure that they receive proper compensation for any change that takes place which means incurring additional costs or causes them to close down. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some reassurance on that point.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by referring to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which I believe will be covered in the general sense. I am sure that my noble friend was not asking for a particular part of an industry to be singled out for separate treatment. I understand that the issue of compensation arises under Amendment No. 26.
	I am in an unusual position. I understand that whether I say "yes" or "no" I shall manage to agree with the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It is a pleasant position for me to be in.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, indicated, Amendment No. 22 was introduced on previous occasions, including on Report. I must repeat what I said at that stage. The amendment would, in effect, completely remove from the Environment Agency, and the Secretary of State on appeal, the responsibility for determining a key condition—the time limit—to apply to transfer licences, but only those granted for "dewatering activities".
	Concerns were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, about the process. This duty would, in effect, be transferred to planning authorities, which I believe both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness agreed are not ideally set up to deal with it. Indeed there is no statutory requirement for a planning authority to give effect to the Environment Agency's recommendation on those matters.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has referred to figures, assuming a refusal to renew licences. The whole policy is based on a presumption of renewal and the availability of technical solutions to resolve the problems that may arise, provided there is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, indicated, either damage to the environment or a problem with regard to other users of the water supply.
	Of course, the real issue underlying the amendment is that of the initial investment uncertainties if a transfer licence is shorter than the intended life of the quarry. We recognise that important concern, but it is neither insurmountable nor particularly constrained to the quarrying industry, a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	Clearly and plainly we do not mean that there will be refusals in all cases. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, raised the issue, as did my noble friend, of the need to use the resources that we receive from the quarrying industry. If the quarrying industry is confident that it can deal adequately with the environmental effects of dewatering, then it has no reason to fear the availability of a licence to enable that to continue. If the problems were insurmountable, it would be right that there should be an opportunity to review the decision with the appropriate rights of appeal.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the issue of the number of quarries involved. The number of quarries that he indicated would be affected only were there to be a presumption of non-renewal. My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon has discussed with me in your Lordships' Chamber, in Grand Committee and, on many occasions socially outside, the issue of dewatering. If dewatering is not damaging the environment, if the water is going back into the same water source, and there is no problem for other users, his fears are groundless.
	In those circumstances, and with those repeated assurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw the amendment and accept that the industries to which they have referred will have the same open and fair consideration of those issues by the agency and the Secretary of State as any other group. I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I can stress that she has said again that the Bill is based on the presumption of renewal unless damage is done. If the Minister could point to where that is stated in the Bill we would be quite happy. I have not managed to find it anywhere in the Bill. I know it is late; I know I am tired, but I cannot see it in the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we have had this debate at every stage of the Bill. The renewal of licences can be withheld only in circumstances where either there are reasonable grounds or there is an opportunity for a legal challenge. Reasonable grounds means damage to the environment or to other users' interests of the same water source. I do not think that I can say anything that will reassure the noble Baroness further. However, if I have failed to reassure her, I would be only too happy to write to her, repeating the detail that was given on previous occasions.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to what is technically supposed to be "in practice". But "in practice" is not "in legislation". Whatever the noble Lord does to his amendment—and I have no way of drawing him one way or another—we should record the fact that it is no use the Government going on saying, as they have during the passage of the Bill, "Well, in practice this will happen" or, "In practice that will happen" when it is actually not on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have little to add. The noble Baroness appears to believe that the Government's intention behind this legislation is to prevent industries such as the quarrying industry from continuing to work. That is not what the Bill is about. We have discussed this issue on many occasions. It concerns how we prevent the continuation of something were it to cause environmental damage or damage to the interests of other uses of the same water supply.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I do so, predictably, in fairly lukewarm fashion. None the less, I thank her. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Berkeley, Lord Howie and Lord Lipsey, who have spoken in support of the amendment. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
	The Government's principal response has been to say—a point we have just discussed—that there is a presumption of renewal. That would be most reassuring were it visible. In my judgment, it is not currently visible. As the Bill proceeds, it would be very helpful if further work could be done on that because the issue of presumption of renewal changes how this Bill will affect the water industry.
	The reason is not simply the initial investment; it is the continuing investment. Money will have to be committed over a 15 or 20-year lifecycle from now on. That is a precondition of the Government achieving their aims in their massive construction proposals. The concern is not simply that the licence may be withdrawn haphazardly; rather it is that—if one is going to the banks to persuade them to lend the money—the banks require significant reassurance that the business is viable for more than a six-year period, or even a 12-year period in some cases depending on the level of investment.
	I stress that point because it is very important for government policy conceived in a broader context. I hope that the Minister might take the opportunity to have a briefing from the civil servants who visited the quarries that we arranged for them because I think they probably now have a clearer understanding of the issues. The remaining question is whether the Government are turning the matter down on principle or whether in practice one could find ways around the issues. In terms of practice, the key is the degree of reassurance that one could have that the presumption of renewal would stand up not simply in a court of law but in front of the bankers who will lend the money that will keep this industry going. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: moved Amendment No. 23:
	After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"RENEWAL OF LICENCES (MINES & QUARRIES)
	After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—
	"46ZA RENEWAL OF LICENCES (MINES & QUARRIES)
	(1) An application to renew a licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—
	(a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or
	(b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ("de-watering abstractions"),
	shall be subject to three tests, namely that it can be reasonably demonstrated that—
	(a) environmental sustainability is not in question;
	(b) there is a need for the licence;
	(c) the water abstracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently and effectively.
	(2) If the conditions of subsection (1) above are met, the licence will be renewed for a minimum of six years.
	(3) Where an application to renew a licence is refused under subsection (2) above, a person who made the application may appeal to the Secretary of State within such period and subject to such procedures as may be prescribed by order.
	46ZB RENEWAL OF LICENCES (MINES & QUARRIES)
	( ) Where an application to renew a licence is refused under section 46ZA or the terms of any licence renewed under that section are varied in comparison with the licence which it replaces and the effect of such refusal or variation would be such as to affect to a material extent—
	(a) the economic viability of operating the site to which the application relates; or
	(b) the asset value of the site to which the application relates,
	then compensation will be payable for any loss or damage resulting from any such refusal or variation.""

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment. The first part of Amendment No. 23 has been covered in principle by Amendment No. 21. I shall not speak further to that in detail because we have had a thorough discussion of the issue of principle there.
	The second part, however, is particularly germane to issues we have just been discussing. It deals with reassurances concerning compensation. If in fact licences were withdrawn, the issue of compensation becomes a real one. The proposed new Section 46ZB is a request for clarification on the matter of compensation in the event of licences being withdrawn for the reasons given in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I again support the amendments. The reality is that if one has a viable, extant quarry, and the terms of the water licence are subsequently amended—or even revoked—in such a way as to make the quarry non-viable, that is tantamount to withdrawal of planning permission. Withdrawal of planning permission would certainly be eligible for compensation in almost any circumstances. So it looks as though the effect of a planning permission could be amended without the eligibility for compensation under the Bill as drafted.
	That is a fundamental point, and it returns us to the points made about the assurance required for those who provide the funding that backs those operations. This is a significant matter. I hope that the Government may find it in their heart even at this late stage to repent from their omission and agree to the amendments.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment, and shall do so fairly briefly. I worry not about the amendment but about its situation. From time to time when discussing these matters, people talk about something abstract, ethereal and possibly theological called the environment. We should bear in mind that the quarry is part of the environment. The well-being and continued well-being of the quarry is part of the well-being and continued well-being of the environment. That should not be forgotten.
	Looking at the matter from my peculiar standpoint, I find that most people worried about the environment confuse the word "environment" with nature. They worry about heather—which is a splendid thing—birds and bees, and so on. So when we receive assurances from the Environment Agency—which is an admirable body, let me say right away; lest I should be misunderstood at this point—we must be sure that they are based on an understanding of the environment that is not narrow and theological but real.
	I have some experience of the Environment Agency, English Nature and the natural trust, or whatever it is called. What is it called?

Noble Lords: The National Trust.

Lord Howie of Troon: Yes, my Lords, the National Trust—that august body of self-appointed persons. I have some experience of its attitude toward nature and things that are actually there. I say this with a certain amount of trepidation, because I happen to be a tenant of the National Trust coastguard's cottage near Beachy Head, which is threatened by coastal erosion.

Lord Berkeley: That serves you right, does it not?

Lord Howie of Troon: It does indeed, my Lords. At one time I owned it, but I exchanged that for a tenancy, which seemed a better idea. We there discovered that the attitude of the environmentalists—to give them a portmanteau title—was to prefer grass and chalk to houses. Houses should go. That is not my notion. The houses were part of the environment, just as a quarry is part of the environment. That analogy is fairly clear.
	I found the environmental groups polite but savage—not at all as benign as we seem to be regarding them. Noble Lords are saying things such as, "We have assurances from those people". Assurances are all very well; they have been made in the House tonight on behalf of well-meaning people whom I trust absolutely—including the Environment Agency. I see in her place the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is the embodiment of the Environment Agency, but she will not be there for ever. She will not be there 30 years from now; she will have moved on to higher things; of that I am quite sure. She will be governor of some colony, or something, but she will not be there. I do not say that her assurances will be like pie crusts, but they will be such that her successors will not remember them. I have no doubt that they will be kept in a file somewhere in Hansard. However, they will have no particular validity because the person who will then have to decide on these matters will have forgotten them or perhaps never even have heard of them. In 25 years in this House and several years in another place, I have heard many assurances, which are wonderful when made but which, like smoke rings, last for a relatively short time.
	It would be preferable that the amendment be accepted, or that the Government, if unable to accept the amendment as it stands, were to reconsider the matter in another place on the strength of what we have tried to impress on them and perhaps come up with some other, more emollient words that meet these objectives. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, on the issue of compensation, we on these Benches say that although planning permission is, of course, given to individuals or to small business, those individuals or small businesses may nevertheless be dependent on their rights to compensation for obstruction. Of course, the quarrying industry is operated on a much bigger scale. I believe that the issue of compensation for individuals, small businesses, or indeed such a big business should be dealt with in an equitable way. For that reason, I cannot support these amendments.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by stating a previous interest and the fact that I do not view nature, the environment or the rural community through the eyes of the kind of chocolate box world that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon seems to imply. Having served on the planning committee of a large county council for over 20 years, I can assure my noble friend that I recognise not only the groups of which he has advised me but also other groups with commercial and industrial interests.
	To the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I say that the issue of compensation and planning permission is hardly analogous in these particular circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, recognised, Amendment No. 23 seeks to provide for the payment of compensation in the event that a licence is not renewed or is curtailed.
	I cannot believe that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches would want to change the important policy principle of the polluter having to pay. The only reason for the non-renewal, or perhaps even curtailment, of a quarry dewatering licence would be an environmental problem that could not be overcome.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Howie that if there is no environmental problem, if no one suffers, if the problem can be overcome, the issue does not arise. On the other hand, if it is not possible to overcome the problem technically or if the cost of doing so would render further development uneconomic, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, provides that whatever the environmental effect of a quarrying operation, it should become a public liability. I suggest to noble Lords that that cannot be right. On the basis of that argument, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, indicated, it cannot be right to accept that principle.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, has she taken account of the fact that the second part of the amendment, proposed Section 46ZB, refers quite explicitly to,
	"Where an application . . . is refused under section 46ZA"?
	The terms under which a licence could be refused are specified. Provided that those terms are met, compensation would reasonably be provided. I ask the Minister to take into account that proposed Section 46BZ merely brings the provision for compensation in those circumstances into line with the Environment Act provisions.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the circumstances could not arise under the terms of the Bill. I am certain that my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is correct. I noted his interest in pursuing those issues in another place. If it would help him, I shall write to him as soon as possible.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and look forward to receiving her letter. I also thank those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I simply stress that bankers might reasonably want the assurance that, where no fault could reasonably be shown and for whatever reason—committees make mistakes—a licence is withheld, compensation would be available. Compensation should be available in those circumstances. Any reassurance that could be given in that respect would be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 23 [Modification of impounding licences]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
	Page 25, leave out lines 13 and 14.
	Page 25, line 15, leave out "such notices" and insert "notices of appeal under subsection (1C) above"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Compensation for modification of licence on direction of Secretary of State]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 32, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
	"( ) Subsection (4) above shall not apply while the possibility of the abstraction of water under the licence constitutes part of—
	(a) any water resource management scheme maintained under section 20, 20A or 20B above; or
	(b) any drought plan maintained under section 39B above.""

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the amendment has been relayed simply because, on Report, I asked the Minister a series of questions aimed at eliciting the facts behind the Government's proposals to reduce the seven-year time limit to four years.
	At the time, as reported in Hansard on 12th June at col. 428, the noble Lord admitted that he could not answer most of my questions. My noble friend says that there were an awful lot of them. That is a most unsatisfactory, not to say arbitrary, state of affairs. The Government have almost halved the length of time that a licence holder can retain a licence without using it and still be eligible for compensation if that licence is amended or revoked.
	At the same time, the Government cannot explain their rationale for the action. They did not calculate the four years. They do not know what will happen to a farmer who loses his licence and then needs it again for perfectly good agricultural reasons. So far as I can see, they do not plan to allow water undertakers to refuse to supply water for a new build, even where the local supply is under great stress. Will a farmer needing water have a higher priority than a property developer or someone who washes cars? There has been no direction whatever. Which will come first? Will it be first come, first served?
	Apparently, the Government have no estimates of the good things that may be expected to flow from those restrictions: good news for the environment, tourism and the countryside. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a more satisfactory answer than we had on Report. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the aim of the reduction from seven to four years is to tighten up the controls. The control of actual revocation of a licence after seven years has been used rarely and would rarely be used where there is a four-year limit. The issue is whether, if a sleeper licence exists, the Environment Agency can intervene if there is no good reason for the non-use of water. If there is a good reason for its non-use, particularly if use is related to planning and rotation systems, there is no intervention by the Environment Agency.
	The intention is not that all sleeper licences should finish after four years. The Environment Agency would have the right to look at a licence and to intervene and take it away if there were no good reason for it. In fact, the amendment as it stands is not really about whether a licence can be revoked but whether compensation can be received. If I have understood the implications of the amendment correctly, compensation would only be received if it were shown that the licence holder was not using the water for valid planning reasons. However, the licence would not have been revoked in those circumstances.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but the amendment concerns drought planning purposes. That is really the problem. As I explained several times during the passage of the Bill, one cannot plan for drought or for over-rainy conditions. It is a real problem in the South East. We have been very fortunate in the past few years and have been able to just about cope when there has not been a lot of rainfall, but in the past the drought has been very serious. Without this sort of sleeper licence the water companies are not able to cope.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the non-use of a licence was a precautionary measure against drought, or contributed to a precaution against drought, there would be no grounds for the Environment Agency to intervene. Therefore, the issue of compensation would not arise. The Environment Agency must act reasonably. If it does not, there is the possibility of appeal to the Secretary of State or a judicial review of the decision. The amendment seems to envisage a situation in which a licence is revoked when the non-use is for a valid reason. That would not arise.
	There are also technical problems with the amendment, if the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is tempted to pursue it. It misconceives the situation in the first place. It is certainly not the intention of the Environment Agency to revoke licences simply because they have not been used and certainly not in circumstances when non-use contributes positively to water resource management or to a precaution against adverse water resource development.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for her contribution and I thank the Minister. If my amendment has technical problems—at this stage of the Bill I cannot do anything about that—my colleagues in another place may be able to look at it again. If the Minister is saying the Environment Agency will not intrude or misinterpret the situation in the wrong way, I must return to what I have said throughout the Bill. The Minister will be well aware of what I am going to say. I cannot find that anywhere in the Bill. It is not there. I do not think that I am asleep or too far past it.
	One of the grievances that we have with the Bill is that too much is given to the Environment Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is in her place. There is no personal animosity at all in the matter. There is a question over whether the Environment Agency is responsible or reliant on having to come back to Parliament to explain its decisions. It is at arm's length from Parliament. Therefore, it is important that, if there is an opportunity in a Bill to do something positive, we should take it.
	Having said that, although I do not know whether I feel any better for having said it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 29 [Withdrawal of compensation for certain revocations and variations]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
	Page 33, line 25, leave out from "protect" to end of line 26 and insert "from serious damage—
	(i) any inland waters,
	(ii) any water contained in underground strata,
	(iii) any underground strata themselves,
	or any flora or fauna dependent on any of them." Page 33, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) Expressions used in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1)(d) are to be construed in accordance with section 221 of the WRA, and "waters", in relation to a lake, pond, river or watercourse which is for the time being dry, includes its bottom, channel or bed."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 30:
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
	"APPLICATION OF CERTAIN WATER RESOURCES PROVISIONS TO THIS ACT
	(1) The relevant WRA provisions apply to (or in relation to) the following sections of this Act (the "applicable sections") as they apply to (or in relation to) Part 2 or, as the case may be, Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the WRA—
	(a) section 5(existing impounding works),
	(b) section 6(existing impounding works: works notices), and
	(c) section 12(orders under section 33 of the WRA, etc).
	(2) Accordingly, in the relevant WRA provisions—
	(a) references to Part 2 of, or to Chapter 2 of Part 2 of, the WRA are to be read as if the applicable sections were included in that Part or that Chapter,
	(b) references to the related water resources provisions are to be read as if those provisions meant, in relation to the applicable sections, the relevant WRA provisions other than section 222 of the WRA, and
	(c) references to the Secretary of State are to be read as references to the appropriate authority (as defined, in each case, in the applicable section in question).
	(3) The "relevant WRA provisions" are the following provisions of the WRA—
	(a) section 120 (contributions between the Agency and certain other authorities),
	(b) section 158 (works agreements for water resources purposes),
	(c) section 201 (power to require information in respect of water resources functions), as substituted by section 70 of this Act,
	(d) section 216 (enforcement: powers and duties),
	(e) section 222 (Crown application), as in force immediately before the substitution made by paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 21 to the Environment Act 1995 (c.25) and for so long as the substituted section 222 does not apply to Part 2 of the WRA.
	(4) Section 220 of the WRA (provisions relating to service of documents) applies to documents required or authorised by virtue of any of the applicable sections to be served on any person as it applies to documents required or authorised to be served by virtue of the WRA.
	(5) References in the WRA to the functions (generally) of the Environment Agency are to be read as including the Agency's functions under the applicable sections."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Consumer Council for Water]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 39, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) In the exercise of its functions the Council shall have regard, where relevant, to any benefits to consumers from the achievement of sustainable development."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the four amendments in the group respond to points made on Report about the sustainable development duty on the consumer council for water, a duty to consult the council and the allocation by the Competition Commission of the costs connected with appeals against price limits.
	One amendment relating to the consumer council and licensees was overlooked on Report. I think it is the final amendment in the group. The other amendments respond to anxieties expressed at earlier stages. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Government for tabling the amendments. I am particularly pleased to see Amendment No. 31, which gives the consumer council the ability to have regard to sustainability duty. When the council is formed, it will be grateful for the opportunity to be able to have that duty within its remit.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, on these Benches, we thank the Minister for considering the issues raised at length on Report and for tabling the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 32:
	After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
	"COORDINATED REGULATION
	After section 5 of the WIA there is inserted—
	:TITLE3:"PART 1A
	:TITLE3:COORDINATED REGULATION
	COORDINATED REGULATION
	(1) In this section the Agency, the Authority, the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and (if separately appointed) the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water for Wales and the Consumer Council for Water shall together be referred to as "the regulators".
	(2) The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the regulators shall consult and cooperate with one another in those matters which affect the water industry and where there is or may be an overlapping or conflicting interest.""

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the amendment is an abbreviated form of the amendment that we moved on Report. The Minister greeted that amendment with the immortal words:
	"This amendment is better than the previous one, but it is not quite there yet".—[Official Report, 24/6/03; col. 183.]
	The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 36, which, I hope that the Minister will say, is the one that, he thinks, is "there".
	I am not sure that the Minister's amendment is as broad in scope as ours, but, to the extent that it meets much of what we have asked for, I am grateful to see it. The Minister may wish to speak to it himself. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pre-empts me. Amendment No. 36 is intended to be an improvement on his amendment and to be more workable. It is directed at the same objective. The need for the regulators to co-operate with each other has been emphasised at several stages of the Bill's passage.
	The point that I have made in qualification of that is that each regulator has distinctive duties. We consider that it is better that they use bilateral and multilateral memoranda, rather than having an all-embracing duty, as the noble Lord's amendment would impose. Our amendment will achieve the kind of co-ordination that the noble Lord and others have sought.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, that is good news. It indicates that joined-up government—or joined-up agencies—is beginning to work. I thank the noble Lord.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 45 [General functions of the Council]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 53, line 9, at end insert—
	"DUTY TO CONSULT COUNCIL
	(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to consult the Council in relation to the exercise of each of its functions, except where—
	(a) the Council has indicated to the Authority (whether specifically or generally) that it does not wish to be consulted; or
	(b) the Authority considers that it would be clearly inappropriate to consult the Council.
	(2) That duty is in addition to any duty on the Authority to consult the Council which is provided for elsewhere."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Provision of information to the Council]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 53, leave out lines 26 and 27.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 51 [Enforcement of certain provisions]:
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 36:
	After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
	"COOPERATION BETWEEN WATER REGULATORS
	(1) This section imposes duties on each of the following—
	(a) the Secretary of State,
	(b) the Assembly,
	(c) the Environment Agency, and
	(d) the Water Services Regulation Authority.
	(2) It is the duty of each of those mentioned in subsection (1) to make arrangements with each of the others with a view to promoting, in the case of each pair of them—
	(a) co-operation and the exchange of information between them, and
	(b) consistency of treatment of matters which affect both of them.
	(3) That duty relates only—
	(a) in the case of the Water Services Regulation Authority, to its functions under the WIA relating to the regulation of water and sewerage undertakers and licensed water suppliers,
	(b) in the case of the Secretary of State and the Assembly, to their functions of the description referred to in paragraph (a), and to their functions under the WIA relating to the quality of water supplied by water undertakers and licensed water suppliers,
	(c) in the case of the Environment Agency, to its functions concerning water resources and water pollution so far as they relate to water and sewerage undertakers and licensed water suppliers.
	(4) As soon as practicable after agreement is reached on any arrangements required by this section, the parties must prepare a memorandum setting them out.
	(5) The parties to any such arrangements must keep them under review.
	(6) As soon as practicable after agreement is reached on any changes to arrangements under this section, the parties must revise their memorandum.
	(7) Parties to arrangements required by this section must send a copy of their memorandum (and any revised memorandum) to each person mentioned in subsection (1) who is not a party to the arrangements set out in it.
	(8) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every memorandum (and revised memorandum) under this section."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 55 [Determination references under section 12 of the WIA]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 68, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, where—
	(a) the question or matter referred to the Commission concerns the review of a price control imposed on the company holding the appointment; and
	(b) the Commission is to decide to what extent it is reasonable to take into account in its determination costs incurred or borne by the company in connection with the reference,
	the Commission shall also have regard to the extent to which, in its view, its determination is likely to support the company's (rather than the Authority's) claims in relation to the question or matter referred to it."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 38:
	After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
	"RESTRICTION ON UNDERTAKERS' POWER TO REQUIRE FIXING OF CHARGES BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME
	In section 144B of the WIA (restriction on undertakers' power to require fixing of charges by reference to volume), in subsection (1)(c), after "prescribed" there is inserted—
	"by—
	(i) the Secretary of State;
	(ii) the Secretary of State on application by a water undertaker; or
	(iii) the Secretary of State on application by the Environment Agency"."

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to designate an area as an area of water scarcity. It would also enable the Environment Agency, as well as water companies, to apply to the Secretary of State for an area to be so designated.
	As I said on Report, the Environment Agency accepts that real water savings from metering will come only when there is sufficient metering penetration to introduce innovative tariffs that dissuade high domestic use. The agency also recognises that large areas of the South East have unsustainable abstraction regimes. Therefore, we propose to give the agency a formal status in the process of making scarcity designations.
	The Government support metering without using the word—I suspect that it is supposed to be an ugly word. In the Defra report, Directing the flow: Priorities for future water policy, published in November 2002, the Government identify the,
	"prudent use of water resources and keeping its use within the limits of its 'replenishment' as a priority for water policy".
	However, the Government will permit the growth of metering only on a voluntary basis. Under current legislation—the Water Industry Act 1999—those occupying their home on an unmetered basis may choose whether to be metered and water companies may, but not must, install meters in new buildings.
	The current situation in which free meter options are offered is ineffective as a demand management tool. Compulsory metering is much more economical than optional or selective metering, as I have explained many times. Water companies can carry out compulsory metering only when the area concerned is designated an "area of water scarcity". On Report at 24th June, I tabled an amendment to empower the Environment Agency, as well as the water companies, to make an application to the Secretary of State to have an area designated as an area of water scarcity. In reply the Minister argued that the amendment precluded the Secretary of State making the decision herself that there is an area of water scarcity. He said:
	"One could conceive of a situation where it would be necessary for the Government to take the initiative, which the amendment would not allow the Secretary of State to do".—[Official Report, 24/6/03; col. 249.]
	The new amendment seeks to address these points by enabling the Secretary of State to take the initiative. It also addresses the other points made by the Minister in relation to previous amendments by giving the agency and the water companies equal status as applicants. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, there is much merit to this amendment. At this stage, in this House, we are unlikely to go much further unless the noble Baroness presses her amendment. I hope that the Government in another place will give Members a chance to fully discuss the issue and, should charging by volume be agreed, the associated issue of what safety net there will be for people who are on low incomes, who have medical needs or who have large families. They will need some form of adequate safety net. There should be full discussion of those issues.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness says she is intending, but we have no confidence that this amendment achieves it. There may be a basic misunderstanding. If the purpose of the amendment is to change the process for designating the areas of water scarcity in order to introduce metering and other measures it is not appropriate to relate it to the previous Act. The provision for designation of areas of water scarcity is not actually in the primary legislation. The noble Baroness may argue that it should be—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would argue that it should be—but it is not. It was in the prescribed conditions regulations. This amendment would not therefore change the process.
	If the amendment has a more restricted intention it is not clear. The amendment could be read in two possible ways. It could mean that the Secretary of State should be bound by what the undertaker or the Environment Agency asks for. I do not think that that is the intention because we had that debate last time. But if it is for the Secretary of State simply to decide on the content of the regulations having due regard to the views of the Environment Agency or the undertakers, that is not very different from what exists at present. There may be some marginal advantage that the noble Baroness may see in making it explicit, but it is already the case that due regard must be taken of the views of those involved, including the undertakers, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, and others. So I do not think the amendment improves the situation.
	The real problem with the amendment is that the noble Baroness seeks to make it easier to designate areas of scarcity, which is not really provided for in the existing legislation; it appears only under the regulations. No doubt, however, if the noble Baroness wishes to pursue the real intention of the amendment, she will inform her colleagues elsewhere. But this amendment will not achieve that.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her support. We are both of the same view that there is a problem with water scarcity and that the safety net must be in place for disadvantaged people.
	If I have made a classic mistake in thinking that this provision was included in the legislation rather than set out in regulations, then I apologise. However, I was not aware that that was so. It is not a case of my being a Janus, looking in two directions at the same time. The whole point of the amendment is to address the importance of ensuring that we achieve the best possible management of scarce water resources.
	I hope that I can take the hint, the coded message, from the Minister saying that there might be a warmer acceptance of the proposal in another place. At this point I certainly do not intend to divide the House, but I shall take the helpful suggestion from the Minister that I should get in touch with my colleagues in another place and hope that they may progress the matter there. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 62 [Water resources management plans]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 75, line 7, at end insert "which shall not be less than 25 years"

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 40 relate to a significant matter which we have already debated in various forms; that is, the need for very long-term planning in the provision of water resources and in particular the need for long-term investment.
	I can best illustrate this by citing two examples which may be coincidental. The first refers to the designs of the Minister's right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister for the Thames Gateway and Essex area to have another 200,000 houses. Unquestionably those houses can be provided and to my mind they can be supplied with water—but not, of course, from the existing provision of resources and arrangements.
	I have before me a different study dealing with the expansion of Stansted airport. I cite it because it relates to Stansted, but the implications are probably similar, although they may vary somewhat in degree depending on where the airport decisions are taken. I say that because there may be a greater pool of existing housing at Heathrow, which would help. This study, a serious undertaking backed in part by the studies already completed in relation to airports in the South East, although it takes into account certain other factors, postulates that if Stansted 4—that is, Stansted airport with four runways—is constructed, it would give rise to 128,000 additional houses.
	Of course this may be a classic example of joined-up government for once. It may be that the Minister's right honourable friend in another place was anticipating something when he came up with his figure, although he could not say why he had arrived at it. That would be a very fortunate coincidence. However, the Department for Transport has not yet taken any decisions on airports, so we have to assume that these may be separate matters.
	This clause deals with the preparation and review of water resources management plans. The important point I seek to make in tabling this amendment is to add two paragraphs to subsection (7). The subsection states that:
	"The Secretary of State may give directions specifying—
	(a) the form which a water resources management plan must take;
	(b) the planning period to which a water resources management plan must relate".
	It is that last paragraph in particular that has me worried.
	The planning period for approved development plans as they exist, or for the approved structure plans as they exist, takes us up to something like 2011. One more review period—another five years—will take us up to around 2015. But given all the time that it takes to prepare for public consultation, to obtain planning permission and to get structures into place, the planning period needed for a major water infrastructure development is probably in excess of 20 years.
	I accept that we do not yet have a decision in regard to the airports in the South East—although one may be arrived at fairly soon. The Minister may well argue that I am baying at the moon, but you cannot begin to plan such major infrastructure developments—be it simply the housing issue to which his right honourable friend referred or be it the housing issue plus the airport issue—without getting involved in long-period development planning, particularly in regard to the water industry. People are beginning to discuss issues in relation to transport up to 2030. My 25 years do not take us as far as that but, if I have read the information correctly, the M25 is now being planned on that basis.
	This is an important amendment. The Minister may be able to reassure me in his response that he has this kind of period in mind. I am prepared to accept that there may be a degree of uncertainty about some of these matters at the present time, but we know that really major development in the South East will occur. We do not make good use of our water resources in this country—as I have said before, we use quite a small proportion of the water which falls in England—albeit areas such as the South East, which are much more densely populated, have a more acute problem and make much better use of their water resources.
	If the water problems are to be solved—I am absolutely confident in my own mind that they can be solved—we will need a long planning period in which to solve them. That brings me back to the issue of water resources management plans and ensuring that they are based on a sufficiently long period to enable us to deal with the major projects that are bound to go ahead as far as one can see. There may be some dispute about the scale and we may make a mistake with over-provision of water resources that may cost water consumers a little, but I have always argued that that will not matter half as much as if we fail to provide adequate resources and these developments are constrained or have to take place in an environment where water is severely restricted. That is a sufficiently strong argument for suggesting the 25-year period.
	Amendment No. 29 is a small amendment which I thought the Minister could agree without thinking about because it would be rather convenient for him if he had it there. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Potential large developments such as the Thames Gateway and the various options on the airports will place huge requirements on water resources and need to be taken into account. But the first amendment is too rigid. It effectively states that the planning period, which currently is normally 25 years on a non-statutory basis, would never be less than 25 years. I believe that, in certain circumstances—partly because of the uncertainty of the future—we could need a shorter planning period in relation to a particular area or a particular development. I would not like to be tied down to that degree.
	Moreover, the government amendment we have already discussed but not yet reached, Amendment No. 41, places on all statutory bodies a statutory duty to take into account water resources. That obviously includes all planning authorities, including government departments, involved with such large-scale developments. Therefore, the noble Lord's objectives will to a large extent be met by placing that duty under Amendment No. 41, which we will reach in a moment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, if this was an earlier stage of the Bill, I would be very happy with that reply; I would say that I would take it away and study it and perhaps come back at a later stage. We do not have that happy option, however, so although I think I am reassured, the amendments are down in part to make sure that the point is taken, particularly by the Government. I think I have succeeded in that ambition at least. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 41:
	After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
	"WATER CONSERVATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
	(1) In exercising its functions and conducting its affairs, each public authority shall take into account, where relevant, the desirability of conserving water supplied to premises.
	(2) In subsection (1), "public authority" means any of the following—
	(a) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26)),
	(b) a Government department,
	(c) the Assembly,
	(d) a local authority (within the meaning of section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)),
	(e) a person holding an office—
	(i) under the Crown,
	(ii) created or continued in existence by a public general Act, or
	(iii) the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament,
	(f) a statutory undertaker (being any person who, by virtue of section 262 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) is a statutory undertaker for any purpose), and
	(g) any other public body of any description."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 89 [Water main requisitions: calculation of payments]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 99, line 29, leave out "an agreement under section 51A below" and insert "this Chapter"

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, which changes the wording relating to self-laid sewers, I should like to refer to Amendments Nos. 43 and 46. Amendment No. 43 achieves three inter-related aims. It ensures that the undertaker and non-domestic customers can enter into agreements equivalent to the self-lay provisions, and in such agreements the undertaker can agree to make a declaration for the vesting of such water mains or service pipes. It allows the detailed provisions of the self-lay regime to apply to domestic supplies only.
	Amendment No. 46 clarifies the prohibition in the Bill on the connection of pipes laid by parties other than the undertaker. The prohibition is that pipes cannot be connected to the undertaker's network unless the pipes concerned are vested in the undertaker. These are sensible precautions to bring self-lay provisions into the main network. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I welcome the amendments, which relate to my Amendment No. 54. These proposals improve the situation considerably, and I welcome them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 90 [Self-lay and adoption of water mains and service pipes]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 53:
	Page 102, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
	"( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in the case of water mains or service pipes which are to be used (in whole or in part) for the purpose of supplying water other than for domestic purposes, but—
	(a) nothing in this section shall prevent a water undertaker from agreeing apart from this section to declare any such water main or service pipe (or a part of it, as specified in the agreement) to be vested in the undertaker; and
	(b) such a declaration shall take effect as a declaration made under this Chapter." Page 102, line 5, after "pipe" insert "to which subsection (1) above applies"
	Page 103, leave out lines 36 to 41.
	Page 105, line 28, at end insert—
	"51D PROHIBITION ON CONNECTION WITHOUT ADOPTION
	(1) Where a person (other than a water undertaker) constructs a water main or service pipe which is to be used, in whole or in part, for supplying water for domestic or food production purposes, no water undertaker may permit that water main or service pipe to become connected with its supply system unless it vests (to the relevant extent) in a water undertaker.
	(2) In subsection (1) above, "the relevant extent" means the extent specified in the agreement for the vesting in the undertaker of the water main or service pipe in question.
	(3) The prohibition imposed on a water undertaker by subsection (1) above shall be enforceable under section 18 above by the Authority." Page 105, line 30, leave out "51C" and insert "51D"
	Page 105, line 39, leave out "mentioned in subsection (2) above" and insert "specified for those purposes in the relevant vesting agreement."
	Page 105, line 44, leave out "51A(11)" and insert "51D(1)"
	Page 106, line 5, leave out "51A(11)" and insert "51D(1)"
	Page 106, line 25, leave out "under section 51A above"
	Page 106, line 30, leave out "under section 51A above" and insert "to make such a declaration."
	Page 106, line 34, leave out "51D(3)" and insert "51E(3)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 91 [Requisition and adoption of sewers]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 108, line 19, at end insert—
	"(5) The Secretary of State shall, within 2 years of the coming into force of this section, make regulations providing that the ownership of private sewers connected to the public system shall be transferred to sewerage undertakers or local authorities.
	(6) Regulations may not be made under subsection (5) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I make no apology for coming back to this issue. I welcome the correspondence I have had from the Minister as he is on the verge of carrying out a consultation. I tabled the amendment because it quantifies the situation on unadopted sewers. In fact, I would describe this as the unadopted sewers and cowboy builders' amendment. It underlines what a serious matter this is to many people throughout the country.
	I shall quote briefly from a letter that I received from Councillor Ken Harris of Knighton on the Welsh borders. He describes the situation in the town, saying:
	"The sewers in this particular part of the town consist of a pitch fibre system installed by the firm of Dorcas Engineering about 30 years ago. The firm went out of business about 15 years ago. The system was never adopted and the Water Authority—Severn Trent—maintain that they will never adopt such a system! In fact, one officer of the company 'threatened' me that if I created too much trouble over the problem, the Environment Agency could come in, close down the present system and force Severn Trent to install an adoptable sewer but at direct cost to the present residents. The Water Authority of the day when the system was installed declined to adopt it and subsequent Authorities right up to the present one—Severn Trent—have all followed the same line.
	The result is that no-one will accept responsibility. Should any problems occur, then no Authority, certainly not Severn Trent, will accept any responsibility. This despite the residents having continuously paid charges over 30 years . . . Severn Trent, in their refusal to accept unadopted sewers, argue that it is not their responsibility to transport effluent to their treatment works. They say that the payments made by householders are only for the treatment of effluent when it reaches the Treatment Works. If this is the case, why do they accept responsibility for faults that occur in adopted sewers long before they reach the Treatment Works?"
	Indeed, sums of money from householders have been asked for in certain instances that I know of to pay for that situation.
	I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's consultation. However, I want to put it on record that I believe that a transfer of the unadopted sewers would address the question and would be the most satisfactory answer in this case, certainly from the point of view of strategy, pollution and the environment. There are other possibilities connected to management of systems, but not transfer of ownership, which is very important. Whatever comes out of the Minister's consultation, I hope that transfer will be the final solution. The issue of management is best resting with ownership in an integrated system. I would certainly advise this course when the time comes to make the final decision, and I believe that it would solve the problem.
	Obviously, at this time of night, discussing such matters as sewers is not very desirable. We are nearly at midnight. None the less, I cannot underestimate the importance of the issue, and I am pleased that the Minister has written to me about his proposals for the consultation to take place. I hope that that is expedited very soon and that there will be a satisfactory outcome. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's views. It is one of the main options on which we are proposing to consult, but he is doing what he said that he would not do: trying to pre-empt the consultation by inserting the amendment in the Bill. Indeed, there would be a number of consequentials in terms of funding and responsibilities that would have to be faced, were we so to do. I cannot accept his amendment, but I accept his contribution towards the consultation.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I believe that it is to the advantage of those who will be consulted to read the proceedings that have just occurred. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 118, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) in the paragraph relating to functions under section 67, for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—
	"(a) for the making of regulations concerning water supplied using the supply system of a water undertaker, the function is transferred in relation to the supply system of any water undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales;
	(b) for the making of regulations concerning water supplied other than using the supply system of a water undertaker, the function is transferred in relation to Wales.","

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 are technical and relate to the regulation of standards of wholesomeness of water. They make amendments to the order that transfers functions to the National Assembly for Wales. The aim is that licensed water suppliers should be regulated on the same basis as the undertakers whose systems they use. The National Assembly will continue to set standards for any water put into the public water supply system, whether by licensees or undertakers or any water undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales.
	Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 55 ensures that regulation of private water supplies, which is a local authority function, still follows national boundaries. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, as a Member from Wales I welcome the amendment. I am pleased to see that this work is being done.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 118, line 44, at end insert—
	"( ) in the paragraph relating to Article 2(c), at the end there is inserted "or any licensed water supplier using the supply system of any such water undertaker.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 99 [Specific transitional and transitory provisions]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 60:
	Page 120, line 15, leave out second "the" and insert "an"
	Page 120, line 18, leave out "is hereby revoked" and insert "shall cease to have effect (so far as it applies to that abstraction)"
	Page 120, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"(3) Subject to subsection (4), the person who was the holder of a full licence which ceases (or ceases in part) to have effect by virtue of subsection (2), and who had been taken in consequence of that licence (or that part of the licence) to have a right to abstract water by virtue of section 48(1) of the WRA, shall be taken to continue to have that right for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the WRA." Page 120, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"(4) A person shall cease to be taken to continue to have the right mentioned in subsection (3), for the purposes mentioned there, if during a period of—
	(a) four years, or
	(b) if the abstractions authorised under the licence (or relevant part of the licence) were abstractions planned to be carried out at intervals of more than four years, or for emergency purposes only, such longer period as the Agency may determine on the application of the person,
	he does not carry out any such abstraction as would have been authorised by the licence (or relevant part of the licence) if it had still been in force."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 100 [Powers to make further supplementary, consequential and transitional provision, etc]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 121, line 16, at end insert—
	"or who is a person who falls within subsection (3A).
	(3A) A person falls within this subsection if he satisfies the Environment Agency of the following—
	(a) that the nature of his operations, or proposed operations, requires him to make plans about the abstraction of water,
	(b) that before the coming into force of any provision of this Act he would not have required a licence under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the WRA in respect of any such abstraction for which he had reasonably planned (or, if there has already been such an abstraction, he did not require such a licence in respect of it),
	(c) that following the coming into force of any such provision he does require such a licence in respect of it, and
	(d) that he has suffered loss or damage as a result of his having been—
	(i) refused a licence under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the WRA in respect of that abstraction, or
	(ii) granted such a licence, but in respect of an abstraction of more limited extent than he had reasonably applied for,
	and he applies for compensation before any deadline provided for in the regulations under subsection (1)."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 is tabled in response to amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Sutherland, and relates also to Amendment No. 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. In some cases, abstractions brought under licence control by this Bill may not be granted an abstraction licence or may be granted a licence on restricted terms. Clause 103 allows us to make regulations covering the payment of compensation where loss or damages arise in such cases, but only where the abstraction was ongoing when the requirement for licensing came into force. This amendment extends the scope of compensation to encompass abstractions planned at the time when licensing is introduced as well as those which are ongoing.
	Our amendment deals with this subject without confining the compensation arrangements to the quarrying and mining industries, as the amendments tabled by the noble Lords did at an earlier stage and as the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness largely does. I therefore hope that she will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has anticipated me as I anticipated him at an earlier stage. He has largely covered the points that we wish to make. His amendment goes over the same ground. It is very good to see it there and I thank him for it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
	Schedule 4 [Licensing of water suppliers]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 139, line 2, leave out "to (4)" and insert "and (3)"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 63, 65 and 66 are related to the competition provisions of the Bill and are minor technical amendments. Unless noble Lords wish to ask questions about the detail, I shall say no more about the amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 139, line 37, at end insert—
	"(c) conditions requiring the payment by the licence holder of sums relating to any of the expenses mentioned in section 39(3) of the Water Act 2003."

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, under Clause 39(1), (2) and (3), the water undertakers are specifically bound to pay for,
	"the expenses of the Council, and . . . the Authority, the Secretary of State or the Assembly in relation to . . . the Council".
	No limit is set to those expenses. A general clause enabling the Secretary of State to require licensed water suppliers to make such a payment as she may direct is really a little inequitable. The costs should be shared between the water undertakers and it should be specified on the face of the Bill.
	As this is the final group of amendments, although there are one or two still to be moved formally, I thank the Minister for his help and co-operation on the Bill. I cannot say that we on this side feel that he has conceded as much as he ought to have. If he were to say that he feels he has conceded more than he should have done, we might all feel happier. The Bill has involved a lot of hard work but it will leave this place a far better Bill than when it arrived. I am most grateful to the Minister for that. In the mean time, I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 is intended to ensure that licensed water suppliers are required to contribute to the cost of establishing and running the new consumer council for water. I thoroughly agree with that. However, new Section 17G(1)(b) in Schedule 4 to the Bill allows a water supply licence to include conditions that would require such payments to be made. I certainly expect this provision to be used so that licensed water suppliers contribute to the costs not only of the consumer council but also of Ofwat so that there is a level playing field with the undertakers in that respect.
	In referring explicitly to the costs of the consumer council, the amendment may cast doubt over what payments are covered by new Section 17G(1)(b), including payments towards the costs of Ofwat. I believe that there is no difference between us on that, as on so many of the Bill's issues. However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
	As regards the noble Lord's more general remarks, I thank all noble Lords for their co-operation, particularly on this difficult day. Noble Lords have reached at least some understanding on the content of the Bill. Of course, I conceded far too much; I always do. I was not able to accept all the points that were made but some of them have, either directly or indirectly, certainly helped to improve the Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
	Page 144, line 24, after "share" insert "at such time and"
	Page 171, leave out line 43 and insert "first day on which all of the provisions of this Schedule and Schedule 8 are in force."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
	Page 177, line 20, at end insert—
	"In section 206 (making of false statements etc), in subsection (1), after "Act" there is inserted "or of section 5, 6 or 12 of the Water Act 2003".
	In section 217 (criminal liabilities of directors and other third parties), in subsection (1), after "this Act" there is inserted "or under section 6 of the Water Act 2003".
	In section 222 (Crown application), as substituted by paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 21 to the Environment Act 1995 (c.25), after subsection (10) there is added—
	"(11) This section shall apply in relation to sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Water Act 2003 as it applies in relation to the provisions of this Act."" Page 181, line 3, at end insert—

"Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

In section 6 of the Environment Act 1995, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) Subsection (3) above shall apply to—
	(a) sections 5 and 6 of the Water Act 2003; and
	(b) such of the related water resources provisions as apply in relation to those sections by virtue of section (Application of certain water resources provisions to this Act) (2) of the Water Act 2003,
	as it applies to the provisions referred to in that subsection.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments: licensing of water suppliers etc]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
	Page 197, leave out lines 29 to 33.
	Page 209, line 24, leave out paragraph 51 and insert—
	"(1) Section 219 (general interpretation) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "customer or potential customer", at the end there is inserted "(other than a licensed water supplier)",
	(b) in the definition of "water main"—
	(i) after "water undertaker" there is inserted "or licensed water supplier", and
	(ii) after "of the undertaker" there is inserted "or supplier", and
	(c) in the appropriate place there is inserted—
	""licensed water supplier" shall be construed in accordance with section 17B(9) above;".
	(3) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
	"(4A) In this Act, unless otherwise stated, references to the supply system of a water undertaker are to the water mains and other pipes which it is the undertaker's duty to develop and maintain by virtue of section 37 above.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, before we finally pass the Bill, from these Benches I should like to record our thanks for the hard work of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington.
	I did not table an amendment on the consolidation of water Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated that he would recommend the matter to the commission which considers those issues. I hope that he will ensure that that happens if, indeed, it has not already. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the courteous way in which they dealt with the Bill.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches both I and my noble friend Lord Livsey would like to record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and to the Minister's team for helping us to move from a Bill that was purely technical to one that now contains several principles: notably, conservation efficiency—on which amendments in various forms were moved by both the Conservatives and Members on these Benches—and the inclusion of the Water Framework Directive, which is a hugely important issue in terms of water management. I see that the witching hour has just struck, so with that I wish the Bill success in another place and look forward to receiving it back here in due course.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my thanks go to both noble Baronesses for their contribution, for the great spirit in which this Bill has been dealt with and for their many constructive suggestions. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before moving that the House do now adjourn, may I place on record our thanks to all the staff, and particularly to the Hansard writers, who have been exceptionally co-operative this evening. We do take that co-operation for granted and we ought not to.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Returned from the Commons on Tuesday 8th July with an amendment disagreed to but with an amendment in lieu thereof, and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendment was printed pursuant to Standing Order 51(2).

Licensing Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.